In my research and work as a counselor and psychology professor, I have come across many misconceptions regarding homosexuality. In this brief article, I want to highlight three that are often relevant in Christian ministry.
One - All gay people are attracted to the same sex because they did not bond with their parents or were sexually abused.
Untold pain and confusion to parents and their same-sex attracted children has been caused by well-meaning writers and counselors who promote this unsupported view of homosexual origins. The usual evangelical narrative is that persons attracted to the same sex did not get sufficient bonding or love from the same-sex parent and seek these experiences in the present via sexual relationships from members of the same sex. For males, the concept of an over involved, smothering mother is often thrown in as an additional family factor. In addition, claims have been made that most if not all same-sex attracted people have been sexually abused.
The truth is that research on causal factors in sexual orientation is still in the early stages. However, we do know from experience that there are many same-sex attracted people who had loving homes and were not sexually abused or otherwise mistreated as children. On the other hand, some say they believe their sexual desires were shaped in some way by unhappy growing up experiences. What we cannot identify with any certainty is why any given individual experiences same-sex sexual attractions. Recent research on twins suggests that pre-natal factors are associated with same-sex attraction, as are individual environmental experiences which vary among homosexuals. The best we can say at present is that different pre- and post-natal factors may operate differently in different people. For now, not only is it unnecessary to pigeon hole people, it can be harmful and intensely discouraging for parents and children alike to pursue therapy for non-existent problems of bonding or parenting. Where abuse or bonding problems exist, they should be addressed but successfully dealing with issues from the past will not of necessity lead to sexual reorientation.
Two - Gays can change if they try hard enough.
Closely related to the prior misconception is the one the places the success of change squarely on the motivation of the same-sex attracted person. Like cause of sexual orientation, the research on sexual re-orientation is marked by a paucity of research. Anecdotes of change abound, but so do anecdotes of those who have tried to change and did not. The most recent study conducted by Stanton Jones of Wheaton College and Mark Yarhouse of Regent University found that over three years, only 15% of homosexually attracted participants in Christian ministry reported the development of heterosexual attractions. Even many of these individuals continued to experience same-sex attractions. Most of the study participants reported satisfaction with their effort to remain true to a chaste life, but only a minority reported change.
Three - The Christian response to homosexuality is to promote change of orientation.
Closely related to the above viewpoint, efforts to change sexual orientation have been advocated historically by many Christian ministries to homosexuals. However, the change is possible mantra has discouraged many Christian people who are sincere believers but simply find their brain responses remain directed toward the same sex. However, in my view, the proper focus of Christian ministry is fidelity to the teachings of Christ which, in this case, may lead to a celibate life or an acceptance that same-sex attractions may persist unfulfilled alongside opposite-sex attractions and heterosexual marriage. Some people may experience varying degrees of change, but any such change should not be considered a test of motivation or devotion to faith. Continue >>
You as well!
jh, totally agree and I thank you for this very upbeat and positive discussion and even though I know we disagree on some issues I think our hearts are truly desiring to see and to be a part of the fulfillment of God's Great Commission. Have a blessed week as you serve Him, believer
believer - Agreed. Hindsight's 20/20, but at least we can continue learning how to address the questions of non-believers and how to better defend our faith.
jh, great post first off since it brought back some struggles I had even before I came to Christ. But one thing you said reminded me of a problem that occurred during the Jesus Explosion of the early 70s. People would ask are you saying I can accept Christ today and a few years down the road if I killed somebody I'd still go to heaven? If one believes in eternal security the answer is yes, but what we also should have told them is that becoming a Christians doesn't give us a license to sin and if a person gets "saved" with that attitude it shows they have not truly repented but as I said earlier they are simply buying a fire insurance policy. But also repentance is about having a change of mind, a change of heart, which leads to a change of behavior in our thoughts, words, and deeds. And considering repentance was the subject of Christ's first message apparently repentance is important to God. Not only is one sorry for their sins but they want to turn from sin and sinning and turn to God through the person and finished work of Jesus Christ alone.
believer - "because there was no repentance or a desire to enter into a personal relationship with God" - I think you sum it up well and that reflects what I was trying to say in my last post. I don't believe "cheap grace theology" really works for that very reason. If there's no repentance or desire, then I don't think it's a true conversion experience.
I think it also goes to the importance of the heart. Repentance and desire for a personal relationship with God are both elements that come from the heart - they are not just actions.
At one point in my life, I had gone to a church that was very technical in their teachings. One sermon led me to believe that if I wasn't sorry for each one of my past sins, that one of them would result in my going to hell. I vividly remember sitting in the car, desperately trying to remember each of my sins so I could ask forgiveness for it specifically, and worried that I had forgotten about something. It wasn't about whole-hearted repentance - I was trying to check things off my list to ensure my salvation.
I am not implying that one doesn't have to be repentant for what they KNOW to be their sins. If someone knows that they have a sin and simply refuse to repent for it, then how passionate can their desire be to be saved and to have that relationship with God? I'm not sure that person could have a true conversion experience.
However, if someone has devoted their entire heart to God and is repentant about what they know to be their sins (they may not -believe- Y is a sin or -know- that X is a sin), then I think that's all that matters. It makes me think about the different Christian denominations. When I grew up in the mission field, I knew other kids from different missions/organizations (each organization tended to be separated by denomination - lutheran, baptist, etc...) that had a wide spread of beliefs. One mission stuck out in particular because they did not believe in the use of drums in worship services (a belief that it was a sin that originated from the Israelite's use of dancing and drums while they worshipped the golden calf).
Anyway, nobody really knew about their belief until someone came along that actually played the drums and wanted to be involved in the worship services by playing their drums for God. So you had one person that played their drums for God, while the other believed drums were of the devil. Both were Christians and had the same fundamental belief of salvation. Was playing drums a sin or not? Ultimately, they ended up not playing the drums in order not to be a stumbling block to a fellow Christian, but I do think that if the first person had played their drums for God, it would not have been a sin. If the second person believed it was a sin, and either played the drums or somehow "gave in" to it, that could very well have been sinful for them, because they would have been betraying their own relationship with God for selfish reasons.
P.S. :)
I also think that if that same person had later changed their beliefs about drums by studying Scripture and realizing it was not about the actual dancing or drumming but about it being done for the sake of the false idol, then that person could honestly engage in the use of drums for the glory of God without being sinful about it. Same action, different heart.
I do want to point out again that taking this to the extreme is difficult to do. I can just imagine some people saying, "So you could murder for God and not have it be sinful?" My response to that thought would be to ask them, "Can you put yourselves in the shoes of someone who is in that situation and honestly, WHOLE-HEARTEDLY believe that the murder you're about to commit is somehow for the glory of God and NOT for selfish reasons at all?"
jh, I was speaking to cheap grace theology which says salvation is all about going to heaven and not going to hell. So all I have to do is say a prayer, go forward in church, maybe get baptized and maybe join a church and from that point on I'm free to live my life anyway I want, to include blatant sinning, because I've got my fire insurance policy. In other words they never had a genuine conversion experience in the first place because there was no repentance or a desire to enter into a personal relationship with God through the person and finished work of Jesus Christ alone. Sorry for the confusion and hope this clarifies what I was trying to say.
believer - (my thoughts on your Wed. 5:47 post) - I think I agree with you, although I'm not sure if I understand 100% of your post. The part that I was not sure about was the "salvation is all about a relationship with God..." followed by "...I believe they will go to heaven..." and then mixed with the "...and pull that policy out it will be stamped null and void because I knew you not". Those statements seem to be at odds? On one hand you're saying that the "policy" won't be upheld on judgment day, although on the other you're saying that they'll be saved but will not lead effective lives.
On a purely technical level, I would disagree with the first one and agree with the second. I think the most basic element of salvation IS a stay-out-of-hell-free card. I think someone CAN be saved and lead a life of sin, although I think it doesn't quite make sense for it to happen like that. I would imagine that if someone is truly saved, then they've understood the gravity of their sins and have become repentant about them before they truly request salvation from God. I cannot say for a certainty that there's a situation where those don't go hand-in-hand, but it seems to make sense for it to happen like that. Why would someone want salvation if they don't know why they need it? It's like getting a bandaid for a wound - if you don't realize that the wound needs treatment, then you're not going to use the bandaid. -shrug-
Likewise, if you willingly lead a sinful lifestyle, you might be covered in wounds and bandaids but you won't die (without taking the analogy to the extreme). However, people are going to pass by and stare at you and wonder if there's something wrong with you.
I think we disagree on whether or not homosexual acts are sinful, but I think the same situation applies to anyone who leads a sinful lifestyle. I brought up arrogance and greed before because I've been to a lot of churches, and I see a lot of that (that "love of money" is everywhere).
I also rely heavily on the idea that sin comes from the heart. If there is a homosexual couple that is sincere in their commitment to God and honestly believe that their lifestyle is not sinful, then I'm not sure they are sinning. If they're just out looking for loopholes to "get away with" their actions and believe it is a sin, then I think it is a sin. Same actions, but different hearts. God looks at the heart and He knows if we're trying to deceive Him or if we're being sincere. I think it also makes sense for mentally-handicapped people (or children, even) that may not be fully aware of their actions that may do sinful things and have all the right intentions in their heart. That's why I'm hesitant to say someone else is sinning or not - I don't know their heart. Sometimes it's easier to tell, sometimes not. (I do base this belief heavily off of those verses that I've mentioned in previous posts.)
jh, I appreciate you hanging around and I'd love to hear if you have any response to my post of Wed. at 5:47, thanks believer
I'm staying on this board to read, but I don't really have anything new to say. That's not to say that I'm conceding anything - there's just not anything I could say further that would help the situation, and there's nothing further I could say that would not be twisted by Delight and/or Jester.
As to the rest of you - I do respect you and your civil attitude in debate, even if we disagree (Forgiven/believer/others). If there's something in particular you want to discuss, just post a note - I'll be checking in occasionally. (If anyone knows of another forum like this that has some sort of private messaging, I would be happy to exchange e-mail addresses.) I'm always looking for more Christian contacts that I can talk to about different topics or ask for advice.
yes, i admit that it is jiggyman's interpretation that homosexuality is not a sin. you dragged it out of me finally.
but you have again failed to point out where i said i was afraid. or is this another one of your "interpretations"...
I didn't have to twist words. Its very plaint to see. JH has studied the Bible, in detail, but because his scholarly views conflict with your not-so-studied views, you tell him he must be wrong. Is it just a gut feeling you have? Are you too proud to admit that indeed the Bible is interpreted and perhaps you don't understand it enough to make a correct interpretation? Certainly, JH and I have both admitted we could be wrong in the past. I don't see why each and every time you respond you feel it necessary to attempt a personal attack. If you really want a discussion, all that does is make your argument look weak and extremely non-Christian.
mikey,
"Why are you so afraid of what JH has to say?"
where did you twist my words to get that idea?
awwww....mikey has pity on me. how sweet. now my life is worth something. all this time i thought all i needed was Jesus, when in fact i just needed mike! thanks for saving my soul, mike.
Jester, I have nothing but pity for you. You're so ignorant and rude on this posting, then you try to speak as an authority when it is very clear JH could run laps around you with scriptural knowledge. Why are you so afraid of what JH has to say?
jh-"God will pass His judgment on all of us at some point."
jh- "If an individual is truly saved, then I think that's all God will look at come Judgment Day.."
So, which is it jh?
It seems you are confused on most points of Scripture that we DO have, so I don't know what you are studying!
How does one become so prideful and pompous in the face of having all your half baked ideas of scripture debunked so thoroughly?
You come in here like gang busters accusing Christians falsly of turning others away from Christ. You think you're going to set us all straight and that God actually sent you here for that purpose.
If you remove the scales from your eyes, you might see that God sent you here to be educated rather than to lash out at all of us with your easy believism and cheap grace. Knowing very little of the nature of God, you bring in lofty arguments that are silly and somehow you think that honors God.
Like a hand stamp one receives at the circus gate, you believe all it takes to get in is a nod to God when in reality it takes one's very life to follow Jesus. If what you say is believable at all, the Bible itself would be a lot thinner, with fewer pages to say what you believe it does and we wouldn't need half of what's in it today. Oh, but you insist we are missing volumes of it and that God is powerless over mankind to preserve His word as He intended. I don't know your god, he cannot save let alone listen to your cliched prayers.
jr wrote: "If an individual is truly saved, then I think that's all God will look at come Judgment Day. Some people disagree with me on this one, but I am one that believes you cannot "lose" your salvation, and I base that on the general sense of mercy and grace that Jesus showed throughout the Scriptures and his apparent distaste for mankind's love of technicalities."
I do not mean to but in, here, it is just that I want to caution. (Not that you didn't see it coming, most likely)
Paul warns those that have been saved to NOT Quench the Spirit. Also, Peter speaks to the sad state of the saved chosing to not be saved anymore, in 2 Peter 2 beginnng in v.20.
jh,
The NT really is the only book we need to look to for our current walk with Christ. I am by no means trying to avoid your OT references. The NT is the new covenant we need to make sure we are abiding in. That said, your mention of Jesus having opportunity to do away with the Levirate law may be looked at another way. First, the Sadduces were missing a point. They were asking about marriage in heaven or more actually the continuation of marriage for procreation (continuation of family lines) in heaven. Jesus was correcting the Sadduces that there will not longer be need for marriage for the purpose of procreation in heaven and did not necessitate a condoning or abolishment of the law. Second, Christ himself nailed the law to the cross.
I believe we agree the NT teaches monogomy. Although, we differ on who that monogomy is between.
jester, I think that's what most people mean plus in the case of the sexual practices of homosexuality that would include mentally as well as physically committing those acts in other words lusting.
believer,
amen. to clarify, when i speak of homosexuality being a sin, i mean the act. temptation is not a sin. just like when i say the lying is a sin. that doesn't mean that the person who thinks about it, but does nothing is sinning. i hope that helps.
jh, as I said I don't think homosexuality is a sin but carrying out the sexual practices of homosexuality is a sin because they fall outside the parameters of God's original and only design for sexual intimacy, plus what I'm saying is there are some people who say they are saved but who are not willing to stop their sinning or sinful lifestyle, they have bought into cheap grace theology which says all a person has to do is walk an aisle and say a prayer and maybe get baptized and join a church and then you're free to live your life anyway you want to because you have a get out of hell free card or a fire insurance policy, the only problem is that when they get to the judgment seat and pull that policy out it will be stamped null and void because I knew you not. Their problem is they think salvation is about going to heaven and not hell when salvation is all about a relationship with God through the person and finished work of His Son, Jesus Christ and that's why they can freely sin or live a sinful lifestyle and experience no guilt or remorse because they are not God's, whereas if they were truly His, He would be disciplining them as He does all His children when we sin. Like you I believe in eternal security and for those homosexuals who are truly born-again but who are looking for loopholes to justify their sin I believe they will go to heaven but their lives and witness for Christ will be very ineffective because they are living with unconfessed sin in their life if they continue to participate in the sexual practices of homosexuality.
ok. but it's rather absurd of you to think that we cling to little fragments, when you do as well. we cling to the scriptures that say homosexuality is a sin. you hold to the scriptures that say love your neighbor. but in tell you that you're sinning and in danger of hell, you tell us that we don't love you. just like a little kid would do. i hope that if im driving along in the middle of a rainstorm and the bridge is washed out ahead from a raging river, that you're not ahead of me. you wont tell me that im in danger, because you love me too much to tell me im wrong.
and i'll be praying that God opens your heart to the truth as well. before its too late. because telling someone that homosexuality is ok, when in fact it will lead a person to hell is a dangerous game to play.
Delight and Jester - I will continue to study the Scripture as much as I can, in its entirety and not just the fragments to which you so tightly cling. At this point, I will still be spreading a message of love, understanding, and acceptance.
Meanwhile, I'll pray for you, as cliche as it sounds. I will pray that you not only come to open your hearts sometime, but also that you do not meanwhile become responsible for turning someone away from Christ or worse, for being the last opinion that leads to someone's death.
God will pass His judgment on all of us at some point. I only hope that He tells me, "You did what I asked of you."
**Correction on annotation: (feet would be so proud)
Matthew 12:36-37 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."
This is found in chapter 12 of Matthew, not 19 as I have incorrectly stated in my post below.
jiggy,
"1. Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality at all."
that's right. he gave the mold for what marriage is supposed to be, and he didn't mention anything about homosexuals. its between a man and a woman.
"3. God does not seem to have a problem making gay animals."
no, God designed animals in a perfect way (as well as humans), but sin (through Adam and Eve) corrupted and perverted nature. read my post from Tuesday, the 9th, at 4:47pm.
"5. Also, since you don't agree with me, although I am using original Scripture versus your translated Scripture, I am the false teacher."
and we use original scripture, and you call us liars.
"6. On the flip side, you are a correct teacher, although you are completely self-studied using your translated version that is missing hundreds of references to God, hundreds of verse portions, and many entire verses."
you know, thats the same thing that i hear christians on here say about you.
"8. You call me a false teacher, but you are the one who is constantly saying "God wouldn't" or "God says" and "Jesus would" as if you think your (or ANY human) mind could POSSIBLY grasp all the glory and possibility that is God."
you are correct. but i do know what the bible says. homosexuality is a sin.
Must I spend time defeating all your arguments?
"Jesus told us to give up all of our possession to follow him"
More accurately he told ONE man that as Jesus perceived this as the young man's stumbling block to coming to Christ, this man's idol. Just because we have possessions doesn't mean we idolize them.
Here's another;"If an individual is truly saved, then I think that's all God will look at come Judgment Day.." From the Word of God seems to indicate otherwise:
"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. Matt 19:36-37. (you might want to take a closer look at this one.)
And this: "...homosexual Christians are those who love God enough (the greatest commandment) to look past the judgment they've received of other Christians and accept the message of salvation."
Do they love God ENOUGH to crucify the flesh? The greatest commandment "love God with all your heart, soul and mind". Where in this Love for God do you see someone willing to live "less than holy lives"?
And lastly this, "Yet so many of us spend so much time and effort on technicalities"...who's looking for technicalities? YOU or others?
No Christians here on CP have condemned non-practicing homosexuals as unsaved because they have "crucified their passions" to walk holy before the Lord. jh- you've got to stop attacking you Cristians unjustly because you generalize we are all ready to condemn others. You've got to quit putting yourself upon the pedestal for your liberal ideas and comparing that with how you condemn Christians for their conservative bible believing ways.
In fact, there was a very moving testimonial here in CP recently from someone who struggled with homosexuality for years and now is celibate and lives within a community of non-practicing and celibate homosexuals. Everyone here on CP encouraged and loved her with not a hint of condemnation.
If homosexuals cannot change to heteorsexual affection, then they should be celibate if they indeed practice the Fruit of the Spirit and have crucified the flesh.
Why would they want to compromise and live "less than holy lives"?
"Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance;
but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct,
because it is written, "Be holy, for I am holy." 1 Peter 1:13.
Is someone who has love for himself first and God second be considered part of the body of Christ? Can someone who has an Idol, have Christ, too?
I know God is full of mercy but does he lie; requiring some to live holy and others to continue in lust?
Believer; God wants us to understand and He's provided not only His infallable Word but His Holy Spirit, nothing more is required but a submissive heart.
Did Solomon finally acknowledge polygamy as wrong?
jh-I have to question your assertion that God has 'opened' the door here for you to cast doubt upon His word and have such rancor against your brothers who disagree with your teaching.
In my humble opinion, isn't it satan that does that? "Did God really say?"
I worship Jesus Christ, the WORD; remember John 1:1? Not a book.
God is indeed knowable; he doesn't lie nor act outside of His Nature as revealed in the Word of God.
"its a mistake to limit our understanding of marriage..." Here again God disagrees with you.
It's not your large words I have a problem with, it's your anti-God ideas.
The more you say, the more it is clearly seen; you and God are not in agreement, as well as you are not in agreement with at least 3 brothers on this thread.
Please don't feel you must respond back with a large missive dismissing me as blasphemous, rather humble yourself before the Lord.
PART 1:
believer - I appreciate that you can empathize with the situation. I suppose I believe that only God and the individual can know the status of their salvation.
If an individual is truly saved, then I think that's all God will look at come Judgment Day. Some people disagree with me on this one, but I am one that believes you cannot "lose" your salvation, and I base that on the general sense of mercy and grace that Jesus showed throughout the Scriptures and his apparent distaste for mankind's love of technicalities.
If I am wrong, then I have grossly misunderstood God to be a loving and understanding God, and there will be Christians that will be sent to hell for technicalities (maybe they lied or stole something just before death - after all, those are no worse than homosexual acts if it is truly a sin). So many Christians are unrepentantly arrogant and/or greedy - they lead Christian lives, and earnestly accepted salvation. But they will die with unrepented sin and maybe they don't even realize their sin (maybe they do and find it to be a "small", acceptable sin in their life). Will that arrogance and greed send them to hell?
Maybe your (you the reader - I am not naming anyone specifically) sin is not arrogance or greed. Maybe you have a sin that you have not thought of because you have grown so accustomed to it.
Jesus told us to give up all of our possession to follow him, yet we all have computers and an Internet connection, and I'm sure we spend money on ourselves occasionally - on luxury instead of feeding and sheltering the homeless. In fact, isn't the American dream - the pursuit of wealth - in direct violation of Scripture?
What is our purpose on earth? What is the Great Commission about?
I cannot fathom a situation where someone would say, "I am convicted of my sin and I would have become a Christian and accepted Christ as my savior, but Christians decided that homosexuality wasn't a sin. The deal is off."
On the other hand, I already know of people who have WANTED to be saved and instead of being told they can be saved, they are told that they cannot be saved because of whom they sexually attracted to (this includes people who have not even had homosexual sex yet). Instead of learning how to be saved, Christians reject them and they turn away from God altogether, and some commit suicide.
Those who do call themselves homosexual Christians are those who love God enough (the greatest commandment) to look past the judgment they've received of other Christians and accept the message of salvation.
Yet so many of us spend so much time and effort on technicalities and TRYING to come up with ways to name someone else's sin. Those who condemn homosexuality do not seem to look in the Scriptures for the truth. They think homosexuality is wrong FIRST, and THEN they look for verses to support that view and they look for places in the Bible where they can insert limitations to fit their own understanding.
PART 2:
I have brought up Jesus's quote about the law being made for man, not man for the law, that sin comes from the heart, and Paul's quote that everything is permissible (you know the rest). Nobody comments on this. Why not? How do you reconcile the condemnation of homosexuality with quotes from Jesus and Paul?
If homosexuality is truly sin, then does it negate their salvation or would it simply mean they are not living the holiest of lives?
delight, it amazes me when others can't see simple things like that, but also the fact that every polygamous relationship mentioned in the Bible brought chaos and death in the family and even Solomon suppposedly next to Christ the wisest man who ever lived came to acknowledge polygamy as wrong.
Delight - I will try to use small words. I never said God approved of polygamy. Like you, I said that it was condemned in Deuteronomy. Maybe you are too busy trying to prove me wrong that you can't even see when we agree.
One last thought:
If polygamy was a form of marriage approved by God, then why would Adam have just one wife and Noah who was charged with replenishing the earth have only one wife?
If God approved polygamy or any other form of marriage, I think we would find both Adam and Noah with many wives.
We don not see that.
jh, I am not one who believes that simply because a person is a homosexual does not mean they will not go to heaven or that they are not a Christian. I believe God condemns sin and not sinners and that sinners condemn themselves by refusing to repent of their sin and turn to God through the person and finished work of Jesus Christ alone. Now where I have the problem is when someone tells me they are a Christian and then they continue to willfully sin or continue in a sinful lifestyle and show no desire to stop sinning and seem to experience no remorse or guilt for their sin. What I see going on among homosexuals who profess to be Christians is to convince themselves and others and perhaps even God that God is okay with both them being a homosexual and the sexual practices of homosexuality. It is those in this group that I tend to believe may have a genuine relationship with Christ, but I personally do not believe that those who willfully continue to sin or live in sin have ever had a genuine conversion experience and if they were to die in that condition will be eternally separated from God in hell.
As a note of interest regarding David's polygamy and God's best for marriage:
David repented of polygamy; II Samuel 20:3 "And David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten women his concubines, whom he had left to keep the house, and put them in ward, and fed them, but went not in unto them. So they were shut up unto the day of their death, living in widowhood."
David felt obligated to care for his many wives but he never co-habited with them again.
More of David's repentance is found in Psalm 51.
It is man who choses polygamy and not God as God sees a man with many wives easily susceptable to deception. Even Paul in his requirements for elders and deacons to be husband of one wife.
1Timothy 3:2 and 3:12.
So, David will be heaven, I'm just not sre Solomon will be as he began well with God but his heart was turned away by his choice of 1000 wives and concubines.
God doesn't approve of many wives and says so in Deut 17:17 which says not to multiply wives.
We see clearly that man chose over God's commands to have many wives. In no way did God allow plural marriage nor any other, save one man and one woman.
Forgiven,
I did not say YOU humor false teaching; only don't humor false teaching. I like your last post...think you'll get any straight answers?
I have no need to further debate jh...he believes you need more than just the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture. Somewhere he 'changed' his mind about the inerrancy of Scripture, to which I say:
"Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things."1 John 2:18-20.
I think jh would disagree with that last bit; perhaps we can chnage it to better suit him...maybe a new translation will help;
" but you have many books in which to test the Scriptures and a good education in which to puff yourself up, so you know all things.
How about that for humor?
You guys can have at him...good luck with all the reading to find a clear point.
PART 1:
Forgiven - I agree with much of your answer. I think the nuclear marriage is here on earth as a symbolic model representing God and the church.
I disagree that all of the different marriage types were defined by man. The most popular "extreme" form is polygamy, but I will not use that one, since there's no clear Scriptural approval of polygamy, and Deuteronomy (everytime I type that, I always think of "Geronimo!") actually has a passage forbidding the multiplication of wives (I don't think it's talking about cloning). However, I -will- make reference to polygamy later.
However, there are several types defined in the rules given to the Israelites:
Levirate Marriage (defined in Deuteronomy and fatally enforced in the story of Onan)
Marriage of a Female POW (defined in Deuteronomy)
Forced Marriage Of Rape Victim (defined in Deuteronomy)
Marriage of Slaves by Slave Owner (defined in Exodus)
Also in Exodus we see the implication of selling one's daughter as a concubine. It's possible that it could also imply marriage, but neither is strictly defined. We do know that whichever it was, the woman had the potential of giving the purchaser a son (continued bloodline).
I think it's very interesting that God would kill Onan for not going through with his responsibilities for Levirate marriage.
This is why I don't think we have a full understanding of marriage. God handed down these rules through Moses, and he set forth punishments for those who did not keep those rules. This might be why so many Christians today do not follow the laws in the Old Testament. I would think that we'd hear something on the news if a parent killed his/her child and claimed Exodus 21:15 as his rationale. (Yet, the people who do not follow all of the O.T. law will sometimes cherry-pick the verses that fit their purposes - I'm surprised and glad that nobody on this forum has done that yet.)
However, I think all rules set forth by God seem to have practical purpose (again, I'll paraphrase Jesus in that law was made for man, man was not made for the law). He gives us a lot of free territory to do what we want to do as long as our hearts are clean about it, but in certain situations He limits us for what seem to be practical reasons.
For example, Israel was a small and wandering tribe. They were an agricultural society that depended on children for everything - military, economy, all of survival. It makes absolute sense that God would enforce rules that encourage procreation and would punish those like Onan who did not procreate for their own selfish purposes.
I said earlier that I would eat shellfish. I don't think eating shellfish is wrong, but I do think that God understood what would happen if you tried to take a bunch of crabs and haul them across the open desert for days without any refrigeration before eating them.
PART 2:
And forced marriage between rapist and rape victim? That seems hardly practical, but if we again look at the society, we see one that values bloodlines. Onan didn't want to bear a child that wasn't going to be his. Virginity was sacred and a non-virgin woman could be stoned to death for promiscuity. Again and again, God protects the bloodlines and tries to preserve them within Israel's borders. Israelites could not just marry a female from outside of Israel - she had to be a virgin and had to be assimilated into the tribe first. Women had practical use, and that was to keep the bloodlines pure. Sleeping around might result in a child that didn't have a clear father. So what of a rape victim? Well, if she was raped and went back to her father - she was now considered used goods, and would probably die unmarried. God protected the victim, even if they weren't ideal circumstances.
In the New Testament, we don't see the same strict law enforced because they hold no more practical purpose when applied to everybody in the world. Are some of those laws still good ideas? Maybe - there's still some good to be gained by following some of them in your own life. As mentioned, Jesus had the opportunity to do away with Levirate law when he was questioned specifically about it, but he chose to illustrate that marriage does not exist/happen in heaven. Does that mean that Levirate marriage still applies today?
We never see any passages in the New Testament that says that we have the responsibility of using whatever law we can find to judge others. However, we DO see several passages where Jesus and Paul both open up the floodgates of possibility. Sin comes from the heart, not from the act. Everything is permissible (but I will not be mastered by anything, nor is everything beneficial). Those who take the possibilities to the extreme are trying to find ways to limit those passages to what they already understand rather than trying to evaluate their understanding as compared to those passages.
Now polygamy. There are those who say that active homosexuals will not get into heaven, even if they claim to be Christian. You and I may disagree on intentions and whether or not they are sinning, but I would bring up polygamy because I think I will probably meet David in heaven. Not only was he a polygamist, which is forbidden in Deuteronomy, but he was a practicing one with concubines galore. Yet, he is described as a man after God's own heart.
Some might say I'm trying to make an exception. I simply say that the law was made for man, man was not made for the law. I think there was symbolic value in the nuclear marriage, and it has and continues to serve its purpose. I think that its a mistake to limit our understanding of marriage to that specific kind, and to willfully ignore that there are other marriage types that may still be "valid" today - marriage types that existed for practical purposes.
feet, show me where God offers another option to either marriage or sexual intimacy?
Delight wrote: "I enjoy your humor...just, please don't humor false teaching; expose it."
When I offer scripture as I have understood it, I do not see that as humoring and in essence is exposing "we" have a difference in our knowledge. Other readers then have a choice to make, I would say.
I'm thinking we need to separate you and jh for awhile. LOL! (There's that humor you like about me.)
jh, I haven't read all the posts below, but I would like to comment on this one...
you wrote: "1. There are multiple types of marriage in the Bible, not just one "divine" one. I know people like to quote the verse about leaving the father and mother and cleaving to the wife (even I do), but I've never fully understood why God would design one "ideal" way and then open up 7 other types of marriages."
God did not open up different kinds of marriages, men opened them up for their own purposes and pursuits.
you wrote: "2. As mentioned in a previous post, Jesus had an opportunity to denounce one of those types of marriage, but he did not and instead said that marriage basically has no meaning in heaven, which leads me to question number...
3. If marriage has no meaning in heaven, then what purpose does it serve on earth? (Please do not take this to mean that I think marriage shouldn't exist - after all, I -am- married and happily so.)"
One big necessity is the relationship of Christ and His church. Marriage is as discribed in Eph. as a "earthly understanding" of the relationship of Christ and His church. The marriage has all sorts of benefits on earth to live "in the attitude of Christ" ~ sacrificial and obedient.
you wrote: "4. Paul essentially tells us that marriage is for those who just HAVE to have sex. I see his point about devotion to the Lord being easier if you are single, but he seems to intentionally take it further than that (like a -deep sigh- "If you really have to..."). If marriage is a divine covenant, then why does he treat it like that?"
Well, like you I must resort to opinion on this ~ Paul does not necessarily sigh here or take light the marriage divine covent (which is to be a reflection of the covenant between Jesus and His bride, the church). Paul undertood that a person's first love (1st command) needed to be God and hoped many more would choose not to be distracted (attention split) and further the work and Word of God.
You wrote: "5. Why did Jesus never get married?"
Jesus had a divine mission to accomplish, which was completely and totally focused. He had an awesome task at hand ~ to fulfill all of scripture. A pretty huge task that I certainly would want not to be distracted from. Also, His bride is to be the church and in an essence His was preparing her way to come to Him.
I know I'm skipping past a lot of messages, but it's getting late and I need to head off to bed.
"feet, just because people can have orgasms in a variety of ways does not justify them violating God's design for marriage and sexual intimacy."
I have to side with believer on this one, feet. Just because we CAN do something (physically or mentally) does not necessarily mean it's Scripturally correct.
That said, I don't know if we have a complete understanding of "God's design for marriage and sexual intimacy". That might seem like a cheap trick (I'm sure I will earn a few "false teacher" references from Delight for this), and I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, but here are my reasons/questions:
1. There are multiple types of marriage in the Bible, not just one "divine" one. I know people like to quote the verse about leaving the father and mother and cleaving to the wife (even I do), but I've never fully understood why God would design one "ideal" way and then open up 7 other types of marriages.
2. As mentioned in a previous post, Jesus had an opportunity to denounce one of those types of marriage, but he did not and instead said that marriage basically has no meaning in heaven, which leads me to question number...
3. If marriage has no meaning in heaven, then what purpose does it serve on earth? (Please do not take this to mean that I think marriage shouldn't exist - after all, I -am- married and happily so.)
4. Paul essentially tells us that marriage is for those who just HAVE to have sex. I see his point about devotion to the Lord being easier if you are single, but he seems to intentionally take it further than that (like a -deep sigh- "If you really have to..."). If marriage is a divine covenant, then why does he treat it like that?
5. Why did Jesus never get married?
I ask these questions in the most sincere way possible. I am not being sarcastic or trying to be divisive.
I've done a little bit of research on some of these pieces, but I do not feel like I have the complete answer, and I do not feel like I've gotten a complete answer from other Christians that I've talked to before.
Jester - think whatever you want of me, but I do not quote Scripture lightly. I don't care which side you are on in this discussion - all your careless, mocking, and provoking words will never be of use to anyone. One of the best pieces of advice my father ever said to me was: Think before speaking. I'm passing that same advice along to you now.
If you feel a certain way about this topic, whichever way that is, at least be polite and constructive about it.
PART 1:
Hi all.
Delight - I suppose I expect nothing less of you than accusations and slippery slopes. Let me see if I'm understanding your basic argument:
1. Jesus doesn't mention homosexuality at all.
2. Paul doesn't mention homosexuality except in Romans 1 where he's condemning the acts BECAUSE (the first words of Romans 1:26) they are in the context of sick idol worship. (I know there's still some ongoing discussion about this - this is just my opinion).
3. God does not seem to have a problem making gay animals.
4. However, homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't create babies (nature).
5. Also, since you don't agree with me, although I am using original Scripture versus your translated Scripture, I am the false teacher.
6. On the flip side, you are a correct teacher, although you are completely self-studied using your translated version that is missing hundreds of references to God, hundreds of verse portions, and many entire verses.
7. You claim I am relying on the wisdom of men while you rely on studying a version of the Bible that was translated using the same techniques that I use.
8. You call me a false teacher, but you are the one who is constantly saying "God wouldn't" or "God says" and "Jesus would" as if you think your (or ANY human) mind could POSSIBLY grasp all the glory and possibility that is God.
Now, since you apparently have a love for simple-mindedness and a hatred of academia, I will give you my simple-minded opinion: (Others, please bear with me as I release some steam)
As a Christian involved in a trusting and loving relationship with Christ, my last point (#8) is extremely offensive to me for you to act like you have a relationship that somehow supercedes all others and that you are God's one and only spokesperson. I am careful to always try to say that I do not know for sure what God would do.
God will do whatever He pleases, whether it makes sense to you or I or not. To say otherwise is to pretend to know God better than He knows Himself. That is utter blasphemy. I am not done speaking to you.
PART 2:
Enough is enough! Where is your fear and respect for God?!! I KNOW my place and I know I do not DARE speak for God like that!
I do not care if you speak for me, even if you twist my words. God opened this door for me to be here, so I will say whatever He has me say. He will close the door at some point, I'm sure. While He still allows me time, I will say this:
I -DO- care when you speak for our Lord. You tread on extremely dangerous waters with your self-righteousness and accusations. I don't care if you disagree with me about anything, but do NOT use God's name in vain in doing so. If you want to pass on your own interpretations, that is absolutely fine - just make sure you are aware that you are interpreting the Bible using your own wisdom.
Regardless of how strongly you feel, you CANNOT be sure of what God would do for any situation, because HE is timeless, omniscient and all-powerful. You and I are not.
He gave us this world, including all the ingredients that make up that book you are worshipping. (That is what the Bible is without God - a bunch of pages, and when you worship the book instead of God, you are worshipping a book - you are not following Scripture.)
Do not take that to the extreme and think I am calling the Bible worthless - I am doing nothing of the sort, and to say that (as I know you would in order to try to discredit me) is blatantly evil. You have read my previous posts and you know that I have said many times over that Scripture is of great use to us. It gives us the message of salvation and tells us how to lead fruitful lives as Christians.
That is why I care about this. I am trying to preserve the original meanings of certain passages for the sake of clinging to what we have of God's Word.
YOU are trusting and advocating meanings in those passages that were not there before. Meanings that were added by the wisdom of men you so love to condemn. Not only that, but you care SO much about being right (more than what the Scripture really says) that YOU are starting to reach OUTSIDE of Scripture by condemning homosexuality. You said it's sinful because it does not lead to procreation - that is NOT Scriptural! Even if you referenced what I've studied on Romans 1, then you would know that IDOLATRY is sinful and ALL actions inside it (homosexual AND heterosexual) are evil BECAUSE they were done in the name and honor of false gods.
However, when faced with logical interpretation of the Scripture, you run away and come back with wild theories of my evil intentions, JUST like the Pharisees would do to Jesus (I am sad to have to point out that I know I am not Jesus, since I can only assume you would try to twist my words and say that I was claiming to be Him).
I do not hate you, but I will not stand by and listen to a fellow Christian engage in blasphemy. I have said what I have to say - I hope God will convict your heart at some point in your life. You have nobody to apologize to but Him.
if Jesus had meant to include homosexuals he would have said so.
believer
feet, just because people can have orgasms in a variety of ways does not justify them violating God's design for marriage and sexual intimacy.
believer
you know there is no "only" in matt 19. why do you keep asserting that scripture denotes only one possibility when matt 19 shows it as A possibility.
jesus emphasized the importance of each stroke of the law. why would you feel compelled to add one of your own.
believer
feet, just because people can have orgasms in a variety of ways does not justify them violating God's design for marriage and sexual intimacy.
believer
you know there is no "only" in matt 19. why do you keep asserting that scripture denotes only one possibility when matt 19 shows it as A possibility.
jesus emphasized the importance of each stroke of the law. why would you feel compelled to add one of your own.
believer
feet, just because people can have orgasms in a variety of ways does not justify them violating God's design for marriage and sexual intimacy.
believer
you know there is no "only" in matt 19. why do you keep asserting that scripture denotes only one possibility when matt 19 shows it as A possibility.
jesus emphasized the importance of each stroke of the law. why would you feel compelled to add one of your own.
believer
feet, just because people can have orgasms in a variety of ways does not justify them violating God's design for marriage and sexual intimacy.
believer
you know there is no "only" in matt 19. why do you keep asserting that scripture denotes only one possibility when matt 19 shows it as A possibility.
jesus emphasized the importance of each stroke of the law. why would you feel compelled to add one of your own.
delight, it's amazing how far some will go to justify a sinful practice or lifestyle, which unfortunately leads to this!:)
Forgiven, I really believe that is what we are all here for; to grow in the knowledge of the Lord and I learn from all my brothers who are submitted to Him. I enjoy your humor...just, please don't humor false teaching; expose it.
Believer, so it's come to this? Quite an explanation.
feet, just because people can have orgasms in a variety of ways does not justify them violating God's design for marriage and sexual intimacy. Sexual intimacy is reserved for the marriage bed of one man and one woman united as one in the sight of God for life through marriage and so is the pleasure generated as a result of the sexual intimacy, there is no biological reason for a woman to have an orgasm other than sexual pleasure which God desires her to share with one person only, her husband in order to enhance their sexual intimacy and their love for one another. Plus if I'm not mistaken an orgasm in both a amn and a woman can be enhanced from different places on the body, but they occur in the same place in the body.
Please know, Delight, I was only being funny below. I thank God for my Brothers who have helped me to grow and continue to help me grow.
Hey, Delight, no quarrel intended, but I find that speaking to my brother only provokes an "Amen Brother!".
No, Forgiven, I was thinking you meant I was sharpening his iron; like brothers do with one another.
This was more than that, we must expose false teaching and not just entertain it. But you are much nicer than I am... insert smiley face here
Delight,
I was talking about my iron. Have I given you any indication that I am agreeing with his point of view?
I'm not sharpening his iron....I think he is teaching falsly. What does the bible say to do when we come up against false teaching from those within the church?
What did God to the serpent in the garden when the serpent decieved Eve with the words;
"Did God R e a l l y say?"
As iron sharpens iron, Delight. Thanks for the concern, though.
Forgiven,
You were asking about jh's statement: "I don't see Scriptural support for limiting "one flesh" sexual intimacy to within marriage."
jh doesn't see much Scriptural support for many of the biblical truths of God. He's trying to expand the original one flesh meaning of marriage between a man and a woman to include homosexual sex and maybe if we give him a long enough hearing, he might expand that to incest and bestiality. Anything goes once you toss the inerrancy of the Word of God out the window. Man's imagination is quite adapatable but Scripture isn't.
The rest, well, it seems he reads INTO Scripture from literature and secular texts. Scripture interprets Scripture; literature and secular texts do not interpret Scripture.
Like he says, he 'found meaning' in Jesus not including homosexuality specifically by name in His list of evils in Mark 7:20-23. You can 'find meaning' or you 'won't see' when you approach Scripture with an idea of finding support for theories that work against the common meaning or the full counsel of Scripture. You know, much like science today; finding evidence to support a theory and dismissing evidence when it doesn't suit the theory.
jh wrote: :"Forgiven - I don't see Scriptural support for limiting "one flesh" sexual intimacy to within marriage."
I'm not sure if this is exactly what you meant? Sex outside the confines of marriage is sin. Yes?
you know. i've read back on a lot of posts about homosexualy and incest. prophet seems to be right. homosexuals tend to think about child molestation a lot. it seems everytime anyone brings up incest, homosexual minds drift off into children. talk about perverted minds...must be natural for homosexuals to think that way.
hmmm. interesting. unfortunately we aint talking about kids. nice try. now, let us adults talk, and you go play with your toys.
by the way. all those things you said about homosexuals, their love, and being fathers and sons and such...goes for incest relationships too. its all about love, right?
i have no idea what you are saying but this is my understanding about incest.
http://www.uic.edu/classes/socw/socw517/siblingincestbrunnette.htm
probably because sex sin isn't something that is taught in churches. unfortunately, we can see where that leads to.
the point about more heterosexuals engaging in the same type of sex than homosexuals.........was that prior to the homosexual issue i never heard one scintilla of a teaching about this type of sex, particularly if practiced by heterosexuals, being a sin.
by the way. all those things you said about homosexuals, their love, and being fathers and sons and such...goes for incest relationships too. its all about love, right?
well, the bible calls it a sin. so it must be.
jester
you misconstrued my point, anyone can chose to believe whatever he wants without recriminantion.
my discussion with delight was about his witness as according to romans 1:20.
what he gave was merely from his own mind, but not as denoted by scripture, which includes, being according to the three commandments.
prior to this the discussion was whether scripture says homosexuality is a sin. it doesnt.
that does not stop anyone from believing that its still a sin.
thats all.
here's another really "persuasive" argument:
"homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom. so it must be alright."
um....yeah. so do two headed chickens and three legged horses. homosexuality falls into that catagory as well. the catagory called "unnatural".
the argument that some heterosexuals engage in anal sex so it must be alright is the argument of a 5 year old.
there are heterosexuals who believe that anal sex is wrong...why aren't you going by what they believe? probably because it doesn't suit your sin.
thats why i dont go by what other people are doing or saying. i go by the what the bible says. homosexuality is a sin.
you sound like a little boy who just got reprimanded for stealing cookies from the cookie jar "you don't love me. you must hate me. why cant i have a cookie. i like cookies! you hate me because you wont let me do what i want!"
its not a matter of what we want, or what "feels good". its a matter what is right. and homosexuality isnt. and to say that homosexuals share the same "love" as heteros would be to say that adult siblings (or other closely related people) who have romantic feelings with each other share the same kind of love too.
yes, i abide in the law. not because i have to, but because i want to. you, on the other hand, as a child, use grace as an excuse to sin. the Lord disciplines those He loves. and a true son accepts the discipline. one who isnt (the Bible calls them bast--ds) doesn't.
jester
i have no idea what you are asking ,please explain. what people are you referring to?
you are saying that homosexuals practice these things.......heterosexuals do as well..........whats your point.
like i said when you are led by the law you have to make more laws to abide by the first law.
anything beyond the missionary position, where the bottom person's feet are not flat is another sin?
awwww...just because we call something a sin means that we don't love you? that's immature. i bet you dont discipline your kids, because telling them what's right and wrong isn't love.
i need to regain my composure. i'll have to post the rest of my message in a bit. i'm laughing too hard at feet's last message, i can't see straight. lol
by the way. all those things you said about homosexuals, their love, and being fathers and sons and such...goes for incest relationships too. its all about love, right?
delight
because jesus does not mention beastiality does that make homosexuality a sin?
what we see in nature is that homosexuals bond out of the same spirit compared to heterosexuals. that is, they come together out of mutual love,respect,affection,devotion,and trust for a shared life together.
we see that homosexuals have never been wanting in any sector of society compared to heterosexuals. they are not less a father, soldier, counselor, friend,attorney,scientist,neighbor, friend etc.
we see that homosexual committed couples provide loving nurturing homes equal to those of committed heterosexual couples.......loving nurturing homes for abandoned, rejected children of heterosexual unions.
we see that concerning all these positive attributes, of those of commited couples, their sexuals intimacy further enhances these positive features in their lives, rather than diminish them.
we see that committed gay couples do marry and take their vows equally as serious compared to heterosexuals. in fact in mass. where they were legally allowed to be married, there is no indication that homosexuals marriages are trending anywhere near the divorce percentages of heterosexuals.
and in spite of this and jesus 's words that" we would recognize them by their fruit", you and others judge them, without any actual witness, without any fellowship,without any connection or understanding, or compassion for their life experiences, their lives or their pain or suffering.
a your explanation is that "we do all this out of following god's word. what kind of word is that?
John5: 39You diligently study[c] the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
is this your love for your brother.? is this is your living out the 2nd and 3rd commandment?
1 John 4:20
If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.
apparently............. part of living the first commandment requires living out the 2nd and 3rd as well..
i don't accuse people to bolster my understanding.
i accuse people BECAUSE i understand.
big difference...apparently its lost on you though.
i dont need to accuse people to bolster my understanding. i understand it quite alright. but where is the first commandment in homosexuality? right out the window, thats where.
and i see that you're good at preaching the Bible, but you dont adhere to it. "be doers of the word, not just hearers...
The only proof and witness i need is the bible. it says that homosexuality is a sin. that's all i need.
but you never did answer my question. well, i didnt pose it as a question, but i'll do that now.
"and all those people who find s&m, scat, golden showers as erotic are ok? because God doesnt make mistakes."
jester
you have no problem accusing anyone of anything to bolster your understanding of the word.
john5: 39You diligently study[c] the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
accusation without evidence, denial of any credible witness, refusal of fellowship, disconnecting yourself from those you would condemn....................where is the 2nd commandment in this?
feet,
and all those people who find s&m, scat, golden showers as erotic are ok. because God doesnt make mistakes.
and as far as heterosexuals go. i hope that heterosexuals start jumping off bridges, then homosexuals will think its okay and start doing it too. as my mom used to say "if your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?"
your argument that heteros do it, so it must be okay is such a desperate attempt at justification. can you come up with something a little more mature than "well, they do it so it must be okay".
please. are you really even an adult?
"I believe there's meaning in that Jesus includes sexual immorality and adultery in the list of evils, but does not include homosexuality."
So, since Jesus did not mention homosexuality means it is not a sin? He also did not mention sex with animals specifically, so that must not be a sin either by yur reasoning. I'm sure there was widespread bestiality going on in His day...with all those shepherds and the agricultural culture of the time. Some instruction does not need to be given in light of Romans 1:20, below.
I use the demonstration of the created animal world to illustrate the fact no animals are exclusively homosexual...if there was such a species of animal this species would be dying out; as homosexuality is an abberration and not within the created order.
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being UNDERSTOOD BY THE THINGS THAT ARE MADE, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse..."
So, what do we see in creation; order and purpose. Pleasure in itself isn't the criteria for marriage according to God but rather a benefit to marriage,jh. Whatever you join yourself with sexually you become one with and that would make one unclean, it doesn't take a genius to see Mark 7:23 that sexual immorality does indeed cover homosexuality as it is fornication and I believe "folly" covers it (and your pro-gay argument) as well.
jh-God says you are without excuse when you READ INTO Scripture any approval from God for homosexuality because it is not included in His obvious plan and doesn't glorify Him.
I keep coming back to Romans 1:22a "Professing to be wise, they became fools..." when I think of your argument, this is what I hear God saying about you. When you stretch the Scripture and read into a lack of specific instruction a permission to do something that violates Romans 1:20 then you are on your way to becoming a fool.
As a professing Christian, you will have to face God one day to give an account of what you have taught here in the CP. Perhaps, he will take the time to explain to you your folly before He puts you in with the goats.
I think I am done here with your argument and because I don't suffer fools well. I'll turn you over to God and His judgment rather than to continue to debate your folly when you work so hard to find support of your opinion in Scripture. Do know, that when I see you on these boards I will call you what you are; a false teacher.
jester
pardon my phrasing, but how is it natural for a man to use his organ in the orifice of another man? that particular orifice was designed solely for discharging waste from the body.
im afraid that's not quite right. the anus is an errogenous zone......orgasms in that part of the body are possible(did god make a mistake). in fact given the numbers of heterosexual couples compared to homosexual couples and given the number of heterosexual couples that use stimulation in that part of the body including penetration, there are probably more heterosexuals than homosexuals engaging in sex in that part of the body.
Forgiven - I don't see Scriptural support for limiting "one flesh" sexual intimacy to within marriage. Again, 1 Corinthians 6:16 is not talking about marrying a prostitute, but it uses the same "one flesh" concept. I think that illustrates that the joining flesh is simply sex, and that it CAN be a sexually immoral act.
Thinking about it from the cheating perspective and STDs - if you are married, you have that one-flesh intimacy with your spouse. If you go and sleep with someone else, it is like bringing your spouse with you to the event, since the next time you sleep with your spouse, you could pass on whatever you'd contracted from the prostitute's previous flesh-joinings. :)
One thing I haven't really ever been comfortable with (something I might have changed if I had thought about it before getting married), is that our society currently does not really encourage cleaving. I think cleaving has multiple meanings - it entails a COMPLETE separation from previous ties AND by virtue of those severed ties, clinging to the spouse. When was the last time you saw a butcher with a cleaver chop something in half and say, "Eh - it didn't cut all the way through. That's okay."
Still, it's commonplace for the newly-married couple to keep the man's last name and for the woman to change her last name to the man's. That's not cleaving - it's human-taught tradition to try to preserve the family name. I think newly-married couples should have to choose a new last name together. As trivial as it might sound, it does make sense. Names are a big part of your sense of self. (I am a Smith! I am a Klein!) There is some sense of increased unity and partnership when both partners have agreed to leave their prior family units and start a new one with a new family name. This is just my personal feeling - there is no Scriptural support for honoring family name (and using "honor your father and mother" is a bit of a stretch).
Regarding all Scripture being in harmony - I think I know what you're asking but some people have different interpretations of "being in harmony" so you will have to be a bit clearer on what you mean. Otherwise I might be answering a different question.
Whatever the case may be - I need to go get ready and shuttle over to the title company to work out the settlement on the house, so I'll be gone most of today.
how is that possible. how do we abide by romans 1:20 but thru the senses. if we are deprived of our senses how do we abide by romans 1:20................ a heart that experiences darkness and shame?
feet,
It does not negate God's Word or provide an excuse.
Have a good day.
Jh,
Do you agree that all scripture must be harmony with the whole?
I have a busy day, I'll to get back later.
jh,
Welcome to Home ownership! Our first house was an adventure ~ it was great! We gutted and added on.
As I understand "One Flesh" "in God's sight", it is sexual intimacy between a married man and woman; as God has defined.
I agree with your definition of "cleave", although, God, Himself sets up who will cleave, a man to his wife.
In anticipation of future questions, I was reading up on marriage in the Bible (a fun topic) and I got carried away with reading Mark. It's one of my favorite books and is easy to just KEEP reading until you realize that an hour has gone by. Here are some choice verses that I came across - food for thought as we discuss sin, marriage, and homosexuality:
Mark 12:18-25 - The Sadduccees challenge Jesus with a question about lawful marriage - not the man-and-wife marriage, but the marriage of obligation and bloodlines (a man takes his brother's widow as his wife in order to produce children). For all we think we know about marriage, Jesus does not take the opportunity to denounce this type of marriage, but instead says marriage is thrown out the window when we get to heaven. Interesting.
Mark 7:6-13 - The kicker being verses 8 and 9. Jesus is talking specifically about people trusting in tradition over sound understanding and godly truth (the commands of God) - "their teachings are but rules taught by men."
Mark 7:14-23 - Jesus hits the nail on the head in regards to sin / being unholy / being unclean by using food as an analogy. "Nothing outside a man can make him unclean by going into him.... for it doesn't go into his heart." "What comes out of a man is what makes him unclean." Is sin about the action itself or is it about what comes from the heart?
Verse 21-23: For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.'
I believe there's meaning in that Jesus includes sexual immorality and adultery in the list of evils, but does not include homosexuality.
Jester - If nothing else, you provide me with newfound respect for Prophet. At least he/she tried.
Have a good night, everyone!
forgiven
Romans talks of same-sex sexual relations as a shameful act in the sight of God even if someone does not feel shame.
There, that's better.
that negates the perspective of romans 1:20 and gives man an excuse.
20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitiesâ€â€his eternal power and divine natureâ€â€have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
the shame based lust of romans is what is indicative of what god has made and what is not of god..............from since creation.
but some people actually think that the longer their oratory, the more right they are.
there is more truth in the one sentence "homosexuality is a sin" than in the two page dissertation given by jiggleman.
there seems to be a lot of careless words in the midst of much speaking.
um yeah.
Jester - Matthew 12:36
a very smart man once told me that the more a person talks, the less he has to say.
Forgiven - just a thought on the "one flesh" concept. It doesn't really affect either side of the argument.
One of the parts about 1 Cor. 6:9 regarding sexual immorality was its tie-in to the joining of flesh (discussed a few verses later).
Basically, becoming one flesh isn't marriage - it's sex. Otherwise, 1st Corinthians 6:16 loses all meaning. Sleeping with a prostitute wouldn't result in marriage, but it WOULD be joining of two fleshes.
However, there's a specific word used in describing marriage (at least one of the marriage types), and that's "cleaving" which takes the uniting of flesh beyond just sex. Cleaving is a permanent bond between two people (basically recurring sex with the same partner).
And this may not be necessary to point out, but sex alone does not constitute marriage. Jesus himself points to this when one of the women he speaks to is living with a man who she is not married to. Jesus points out that the man is not her husband.
Forgiven - I didn't get much packing done, unfortunately (at least not as much as I would've liked). However, I was able to carry a lot of the already-packed things downstairs to the garage to get them ready to load onto the truck, and took care of a lot of moving-related errands, so it was still a productive day. We get the keys to the new house tomorrow! It's our first house after years upon years of renting. Exciting! :)
Regarding sticking with your study, that's no problem with me. You make a good point - Paul is not usually repetitive and I can see how those verses could seem to be that way.
I still feel that each verse seems to have meaning and leaving out one would be limiting in certain ways, and both verses are grouped in the first "gave them over to" and he's still talking about "them." That's my personal interpretation, though. I respect our differences, although I do think we agree on the concept of "nature." I think the verse's reference to nature is about man-with-woman sex that results in procreation. If Paul -is- talking about the fertility cults, then the worshippers intentional ignorance of natural procreation would expose the impotence (no pun intended) of the fertility gods. -shrug-
Delight - In regards to the animal kingdom, I don't know if the percentage of homosexual activity in animals is a large number or not. A few years ago, someone brought it up and someone I spoke to said that every known species that HAS sex has been found to have homosexual animals. I could go back and see if I can find the reference if you'd like. I am not a zoologist, but I have heard similar things from enough different sources over time that I know that the statement has some credibility. If true, then there are at least quite a few homosexual animals out there, given the number of animal species we know about today. Still, even if it might "help" my argument, I'm not sure I would use the animal kingdom as support for God's plan for homosexuality. The best question I can derive from it is - if the CONCEPT of homosexuality itself is wrong, then why would God make gay animals at all?
Still - it's not Scriptural, and I'm still focused on the addition of doctrine. :)
You said that homosexuality does not have a purpose simply because it does not result in procreation. I know some people disagree on this, but I believe that heterosexual sex can be used for pleasure without resulting in procreation every time. If you believe the same, then I would say that it would stand to reason that homosexual sex can also be used for intimacy rather than procreation.
Jester - you too, can use big words. I'll publish a book called, "Being My Friend and Learning Big Words." Inside will be a thesaurus. But you'll get a pretty unique cover and I won't charge too much more than the thesaurus actually costs. P.S. You know what really are abominations? Snow men.
Sorry feet, let me try this sentence again...
Romans talks of same-sex sexual relations as a shameful act in the sight of God even if someone does not feel shame.
There, that's better.
pardon my phrasing, but how is it natural for a man to use his organ in the orifice of another man? that particular orifice was designed solely for discharging waste from the body.
Good Evening, Delight!
The bigger question really is God's creation of male and female nature. What does God say about it? What does God say about sexual intimacy and who experiences this sexual intimacy? Who does God declare One Flesh in His sight? My concern is with nature as God designed for male and female.
All retorical questions to you. I know where you stand.
PS. We are not animals. Probably will be another arguement. ;-)
feet,
I was thinking more of the family, friends and co-worker events to pop up this time of year, and yes, it has been long time since those kegggers. No more plastic cups, perferably a glass. ;-)
You know what I meant. Romans talks of same-sex sexuals as a shameful at in the sight of God even if someone does not feel shame. You are quite aware Romans reads as men having sexual relations with other men as well as women having sexual relations with other women.
all joking aside. homosexuality is an abomination to God.
i want to be jh's friend. he uses big words that mean absolutely nothing just to make himself look like something.
My point before I go regarding homosexuality in animals is that if homosexuality was part of God's design we would see a lot more of it. Just from my direct experience, I don't see it in horses and on the few occasions I have seen it in dogs is only when one is dominating the other and may not even be sexual at all.
It seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in homsexual behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. My thought is, everything that God has created has a purpose and homosexuality does not seem to have a purpose. Homosexuality goes against the design of a God interested in the pro-creation of all living things.
So, it is not my interpretation of three Scriptures that dictate my thoughts on homosexuality, it is what I know of the Nature of God and what I see in His creation along with those verses and much more; such as fornication, unmarried sex...of course, I could be a fool in your eyes for taking God at His word and you may come up with a different meaning to the common use of the word fornication.
At the very least your position, jh, seems to indicate that the Bible (in it original language) is SILENT on the subject of homosexuality. Because it is silent it doesn't necessarily follow that it is acceptable and that we as God's people, can engage either in that or unmarried fornication.
In creation, homosexual sex has no purpose and so it does not honor God.
Forgivensinner
You know what I believe about the referring of shame. The act is shameful even if someone does not feel shame and is against God's nature for man and woman.
You weren't on board much of the weekend ~ busy with Christmas parties?
lol.....long time since ive been to a good party
is it just me, sometimes its hard to believe that a
number of those on this site are out of high school.
so you are saying there is lust and shame even if there is no evidence of lust and shame.
how about there WAS lust and shame because romans isnt talking about homosexuality.
because they have to be there if scripture says they are there.
jh,
I am still sticking with my study on this. It still seems unlikely to me that Paul would refer to one temple in one verse and then another temple in the other verse ~ they are the same practice, idol worshipping/practices.
God's creation of male and female nature is what is in question, really.
How did you get any packing done today? ;-)
oh yay! mike insulted me! yay! now i'm somebody! wee hee! nobody's somebody until mike insults them.
wow. that's deep. ignore him and he'll go away. that's true for everyone. if we all ignored you you'd get bored a leave too.
i don't try to incite arguments. i just get involved in the ones you start.
Hey feet, good evening to you.
You know what I believe about the referring of shame. The act is shameful even if someone does not feel shame and is against God's nature for man and woman.
You weren't on board much of the weekend ~ busy with Christmas parties?
Delight - Horsefeathers? :) Hehe. I'll have to add that one to my repertoire.
I don't have any scripture that specifically says homosexuality is of God's design. There are a lot of indirect references, but I stay away from those in controversial discussions. They are too easy to be seen as twisting the Scriptures, and we're already struggling over the same verses.
None of this is my point, though. My point is that you are basing one of your beliefs on three verses that you have likely misunderstood. My point is that you are ADDING doctrine to the Bible where it was silent. You are introducing condemnation and saying that God was the one who did it.
"If homosexual sex had any purpose in God's design then we would be seeing widespread homosexual behavior from not only all the animals but from a vast majority of people."
I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you suggesting that homosexual behavior is not widespread in animals or that it's just something that a small amount of people are?
Forgiven - I understand what you are saying, I think. Basically - why would Paul repeat himself?
Personally, I think it's because he was referencing both temples and his audience includes both sexes. I think in verse 26, he's referencing the orgies in Cybele temples, which included women-with-women. I think he points this out because it wasn't just the men-with-men cultist rituals that were the problem. Women were involved in these idiotic rituals, as well. Then in verse 27, he talks about men-with-men, and is referencing the rituals in Attis temples. Those were primarily male, and the castration thing would certainly fall under the terms "perversion" and "unseemly." The women couldn't really castrate themselves, so this was further identification of the cults.
In the next set of verses (the next "gave them over") he starts with "Furthermore" - not only was their sexual immorality and idol worship futile, but they were led into all sorts of other wickedness.
I need to take a bit of a break - dinner and time with the wife. Look forward to future conversations!
Alot has been posted today ~ i'll do my best to catch up.
Jester is a coward who hides behind a name to try and raise arguments. Although he personally attacks, please try to completely ignore him and I have found he'll go away.
Delight, I must say, your use of the word "horsefeathers" made me smile. I am always accused of speaking like a geriatric (the other day I said someone shined up like a new penny) and I think we can add that one to the list :)
Just a thought here, jester in the Kings court, why are you being so....rude with your comments?
Is it necessary to insult and does it ever win an argument or even win one to Christ?
We as Christians are to be Christ-like and I don't see mocking others as something Christ would do.
forgiven
of God's own creation of male and female, nature. In the final "God gave them over", he is speaking to those that participated in same-sex sexual relations in idol worshipping as well as those participating in same-sex sexual relations.................................
ill say it again. if romans is depicting that same sex sexual relations are of themselves a sin against god. then why did the holy spirit write" 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts."
are you saying that all gay marriages are about shamebased lust? then you are guilty of false witness.
because where there is lust, what ever commitment there is, is to the lust,and the persons involved are merely instruments to satiate that lust.
and gay couples would not be able to provide loving nurturing homes equal to those of married heterosexual couples for abandoned and rejected children of heterosexual unions.
as i've said before. the good thing about homosexual sex is that it keeps the weaker part of humanity from breeding.
because its BETTER than regular sex. thats why. it's reserved only for the elite.
Oh, Gee, God, I had the wrong translation of your Eternal Words so I couldn't see how You used Homosexuality in your design of things.
Instead, Father I just took the Book you gave me and submitted to your Word and rejoiced in the wonder of Your created design. Although I haven't sinned in my dealings with homosexuals, I just want to know why You chose to Design homosexual sex AND KEPT IT SO GREAT A SECRET!
HEEYYYY MIIIIIIIIIKEY!
i like that word....anomaly. it just rolls off your tongue. anomaly anomaly anomaly anomaly.
but i agree. homosexuality isn't normal. i could go on, but some people on here who are ultra sensitive would flag me.
jh, thinks I'm pulling scripture out of context " because they do not conform to your views"
Horsefeathers.
Please provide Any Scriptural support from Any Translation you choose where it clearly states Homosexuality is of God's Design and show me where the Scripture says that Homosexual sex is an option for the Christian or even beneficial for mankind.
You cannot provide scriptural support because you know it's not there...that's why you lean on your own understanding and can provide your opinion only.
If homosexual sex had any purpose in God's design then we would be seeing widespread homosexual behavior from not only all the animals but from a vast majority of people.
Homosexual sex is an anomaly: therefore not sactified by God and outside of His created order.
mikes got sin AND sass. what a killer combo!
and a twisted sense of humor to top it off! wow!
lol....that aint you.
jester
on the contrary regardless of position, there is no one who has been more sincere, vulnerable and honest in his writings.
jh,
I appreciate your indepth response to Romans. I am concerned though that Paul was indeed referring to idol worshipping and the like in his first "God gave them over" and then in his second "God gave them over" must be talking about something other than idol worshipping. It makes no sense to concede he was repeating himself. In the second "God gave them over" he is speaking directly to the violation of God's own creation of male and female, nature. In the final "God gave them over", he is speaking to those that participated in same-sex sexual relations in idol worshipping as well as those participating in same-sex sexual relations outside or other than idol worshipping to that mindset. Paul writes men with men and women with women which clearly and logically refers to all those engaged in same-sex sexual relations. My major concern is God's own nature and design for male and female. He is the one that created us as male and female to work together and therefore, He alone has set the proper framework for sexual intimacy and marriage. I do appreciate your response. Thank you.
God bless you mikey even in spite of your sin, lies, deciet, twisting of scriptures, falsely accusing people, pride, arrogance, blindness, anger, conceit, etc etc....God still loves you. maybe someday you'll come to know him and love him back.
Mike - I appreciate the kind words and I'm sorry to say that I have not seen that documentary, although I would not be surprised if it had similarities if it covers this topic.
Most of the other people I've come across that study the same topic seem to come to similar conclusions. We're just reading the same material. :)
I'm living proof that people can change long-held opinions. Sometimes it just takes the Lord to make it sound right.
JH, again, I am reading what you write with my jaw on the floor. Fantastic job in your studies! Have you ever seen the documentary "For the Bible Tells Me So"? Its fascinating and relevant to what you have been saying. Its sad that some are so stuck in their beliefs and absolutely refuse to acknowledge their human interpretations could be wrong. Again, pride is quit difficult for some. Keep up your amazing work!
Delight - Actually, no part of my defense of homosexuality involves those groups. They are simply what motivated me to study the topic.
My defense is purely, 100% Scriptural - I just happen to be reading the same verses in their original language and also paying attention to the entire chapter and I can see that they are not condemnations of homosexuality.
This may offend you, but maybe you need to hear this. My intent is in no way malicious.
You are reading the same verses in a translation that you apparently think is more accurate than the original (even though your translation is missing entire verses), and then you are taking those verses and ignoring the entire rest of the chapters because they do not conform to your views.
You claim that all we need to know is the message of salvation. I agree with you, and then you persist in talking about controversial details and get irritated at me for defending my points.
You mock what I have studied because it doesn't result in simple answers.
What you have learned from studying your Bible that was translated using the wisdom of men (because it incorporates academia and non-biblical texts) is apparently godly. However, if you are faced with an opposing viewpoint, you call it the wisdom of men.
You warn everyone on the board implying that I am a false teacher, yet I've said in multiple posts that these are my opinions and that I encourage people to discuss them with their pastors.
I respect your passion, but you are replacing Scripture with it.
I don't know what else to tell you. I respect you as a fellow Christian, but you need to hear yourself.
IacceptHim - Congratulations on being free from your alcoholism! The Lord can do some spectacular stuff! :)
Regarding the groups - I use them as the extreme. It is not just one group, and it is not just one message. Christian churches and their passionate outcry against homosexuality is pretty varied. Some are softly against it and some are quite harsh. I don't think we can judge the status of their faith / salvation based on a sign. I simply brought them up as an example of what got me motivated to learn about this topic.
Ultimately, there is a fundamental belief that homosexuality is wrong, and that belief is founded primarily on three verses in Romans, 1st Corinthians, and 1st Timothy. My opinion is that the message of salvation does not require a deep intellectual understanding, but this topic does. My opinion is that if you read the Scriptures in their correct context and in their original language, these three verses are not condemning homosexuality, they are condemning idolatry, pederastry, and rape.
My opinion is that as long as this belief is held, the church is unnecessarily persecuting some of its own, and turning away unbelievers.
"I cannot stop people from taking my opinion as truth"
Having removed yourself as responsible for what you are preaching (truth or otherwise) does not mean it is necessary to dogmatically assert your opinion...especially when it cannot pass the Scripture test.
False teachers do have to give an account to Christ in the last day for what they have preached and God will hold a false teacher accountable, whether or not the false teacher takes responsibility for himselfin the here and now. You might want to look at the book of Jude alongside the book of Galations to understand the egregiousness of the sin of false teaching.
Just how important is your opinion and how important is it that you assert your opinion, jh?
iaccept
you are in luck. we have been discussing romans for the last 2 days. hope you will take the time to respond to our comments.............annotate.
jh defends homosexuality in part by pointing to Christians who make statements such as "God Hates Fags" became a rallying cry for many Christians"
For many christians...
Like so many others who have rejected Christ...looking to the behavior of the people who populate the Church to justify turning against God; you do the same when you judge Jesus by the Church's actions.
I look only to Jesus and follow what He has said regardless of how I see other christians behaving. What did Jesus do with His sexuality? Since it wasn't necessary for His ministry for Him to marry, He stayed celibate. If Jesus could remain celibate, why can't homosexuals when they refuse to marry under God's clear directive; one man/one woman?
If Paul thought homosexuality was A-Okay then the following verses in 1 Cor chapter 7 would read quite differently in that it would have an inclusion in the Scripture for homosexuality, if that were the viable option to marriage or celibacy for the Christian.
"He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord--how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world--how he may please his wife.
"There is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world--how she may please her husband. And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction."
Serving the Lord without 'distraction' by remaining celibate. Is it not distracting to the homosexual to have sexual relations with the same sex?. I think it must be as the few who are homosexual are spending a lot of time here on these boards to promote same sex. I think it is so distracting that homosexuals are committing sucide because it is not proper to act out same sex relations; meaning their sexuality is SO important that they cannot marry but also will not remain celibate to follow Christ. So important that they take into their hands the God-like decision to end their lives because they cannot in conscience indulge their flesh and they will not crucify the flesh for Christ's sake. Sorry about all the suicide among the homosexuals but hard case make bad law.
My intuation and in all likelyhood the Holy Spirit cause me to believe that the protesters at the military funerals holding up the signs saying "God hates fags" aren't true Christians. I think most likely an organization that is trying to put a bad face on Christianity (most likely a leftist/anarchist type Mike Moore like antiwar group). The majority of the mainstream Christian pastors and commentators have condemed these groups and their actions. They certainly show none of the fruits of the Spirit.
We are called to share the Gospel in love. It is God who does the work of salvation and if a person isn't feeling convicted of "all kinds of fornications" when he is committing "all kinds of fornications" I tend to doubt if that person is really saved. One of the Fruits of the Spirit is self control. The example in my life is the fact that God relieved me of my alcholism withing a few months of accepting Christ as my Lord and Saviour.
IacceptHim - I discussed Romans 1 earlier (it's still on the page if you scroll down). If you've already read it, then I would ask you why you're starting with verse 24 and what "Therefore" refers to.
"Should we even present anything beyond the gospel of Jesus Christ to a non-believer?"
Ask that of the people waving the "God Hates Fags" signs. Personally, I'd say no - don't get into controversial details unless they want to know. The basic message of salvation is quite simple, and like you said, does not require a lot of intellectual diving into manuscripts.
To answer your other question, no I am not gay. In fact, my wife and I just celebrated our 10th anniversary a few months ago. I am happily married and heterosexual.
I can only guess that part of why God called me to study and talk about this topic is because I have no self-interest in it. I do feel convicted about my past, when I used my own logic to argue against homosexuality. I never understood why God wouldn't help me in my arguments back then.
feet - I'm somewhat familiar with Romans. I'm not an expert on all of it by any means, but I do know what you're talking about.
I don't have a good answer for you. I've heard a variety of opinions on the topic. Some say we're still bound to all of the O.T. law, others cling to the verse where Paul talks about everything being permissible but not everything is beneficial.
I have an opinion, but nobody should take my studies on homosexuality to mean that I've also studied all of Romans to that same depth.
Personally, I think that Paul had it right in Corinthians when he said everything is permissible, but people are too quick to jump to the conclusion that they can do whatever they want, and that "beneficial" is completely subjective to their whims. He also says that while everything is permissible, he is mastered by nothing.
Opponents of this idea are quick to say, "So does that mean I can do [insert the most horrible deed they can think of here] and God will approve of it?" I ask them - are you mastered by that deed, and if not, is it beneficial?
I can think of plenty of things that are considered sin that I would do if they were beneficial. For example, I would steal a car to get a near-death person to the hospital if it saved them. I would steal medicine or food to keep someone alive if I could not get it any other way. Yes, they are extreme cases. If they were not, then you're just stealing cars and food (which is why I'm not doing that).
Even if we may not have to abide by the law, many of them still guide us into holy lifestyles. Personally, I don't know if we are "free" from the law, so I still follow what I can. I don't think that God will reprimand me in heaven for being too lawful unless it's somehow hurting others.
We should allow the Holy Spirit to be our guide and teacher of Gods word and it should be studied with prayer and meditation.
Should we even present anything beyond the gospel of Jesus Christ to a non-believer?
Jhildgeman and feetxxxl Where do you stand with your walk with the Lord. If either of you are Homosexual do you feel any conviction twords those practices.
How can the following verses meaning be anything other then Homosexuality being a sin.
Rom 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
I'll stand and say heterosexual sex outside the bounds of marriage is sin. I don't think God would have given us His written word in a way that exhaustive study of acient manuscripts is necessary. Is His word only meant for a few intelectuals or for anyone who accepts Christ as his Lord and Saviour; accepts His sacrafice in payments for their sin.
Delight - I cannot stop people from taking my opinion as truth. I'll admit, people are quick to jump to the first thing that sounds better. Most people in my position will only offer opinion in hopes that people will take it and run with it. At least I call for people to discuss what I say with someone else. I try to at least be detailed so a person can bring them to the table when discussing it with someone else.
As for "all [my] knowledge" - I don't know if you're trying to get me to boast and revel in my vast knowledge of everything or something vain like that, but I would say that for "all my knowledge", I am still humbled by all that I don't know. I may have studied a little more on certain topics like this, but I do not fool myself into thinking that I'm the ultimate authority on anything, even the things I've studied. In fact, the more I study, the more I see what I don't know, which is why I try to be clear that these are opinions. The Bible is quite clear that those who are convinced in their own wisdom are fools.
I was a little confused by your last question, but I am going to try to paraphrase it (apologies if I'm wrong or inserting incorrect meaning): What do I gain from speaking my opinion and risking being wrong?
(Especially since I'm not gay.)
My opinion started because I grew up hearing all of Christians in agreement that God loves the world... and then I saw some of those Christians on TV, holding up signs that said, "God Hates Fags." Some people would say that God loves the sinner but hates the sin, but the sign did not say "God Hates Homosexuality." No, "God Hates Fags" became a rallying cry for many Christians. I studied this topic to understand it, and I saw the consequences of that message - homosexual Christians who committed suicide (and some that failed with lasting scars). I saw church members exiled once they were found out, while other church members led less-than-holy daily lives (but at least they weren't gay). Then to find out that today's condemnation of homosexuality isn't based on solid Scripture?
What do I gain? I gain nothing but the satisfaction of going through the doors that God opens up for me. He opens and closes the doors in my life (which is just further proof that I should not have been the one to decide to ignore Prophet).
What do YOU gain from pushing God out of your way and condemning people for Him? You don't seem like a Christian that would hold up one of those signs, but what do they gain? Are they promoting a path to righteousness or are they just turning away people?
Feet, no sidestepping here and no paranoia either...I really cannot continue to dialog with you as I do not understand your viewpoint so I won't try.
Smarter folks on this thread have given you better answers then I evidently can...and you won't hear them. I just got to learn to quit biting the bait you put out.
Really, Feet, you don't have to believe what God says and you can follow the crist in you. I really don't need to be 'right' or convince you of my viewpoint.
delight
nice side stepping.............so you are paranoid in admitting that christ came because man could not then and cannot now follow the law.
or is it only you and a select can and no one else.
you know immediately when you have sinnned so as to instantly fully repent, never being guilty of unrepentent sin.
its so much easier to point your finger at someone else than to account for yourself.
delight
nice side stepping.............so you are paranoid in admitting that christ came because man could not then and cannot now follow the law.
or is it only you and a select can and no one else.
you know immediately when you have sinnned so as to instantly fully repent, never being guilty of unrepentent sin.
its so much easier to point your finger at someone else than to account for yourself.
jh
how much are you familiar with romans. consider that pauls says we have died to the law and are resurrected in christ to live under grace.
romans8:2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature,[a] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.[b] And so he condemned sin in sinful man,[c] 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.
that under the new covenant, that the 2nd commandment is the summation of all the law, the fulfillment of the law being love.
and now the law, the law that we are concerned to live by is for making us conscious of loving our neighbor as ourself, the 2nd commandment.
that means all that is sin regarding the law is that which comes against the 2nd commandment.
that christ in giving us the three commandments of love he gave us all that we need to live by.
god first loved us, having received that love,thru grace loved god with that same love, loved ourselves and our neighbor. and lastly we love one another as christ loved us............"the greatest among you will be your servant."
what else is needed other than teaching us how to do this?
jh-"Suppose your opinion is incorrect and God really does NOT condemn the practice of homosexuality? :)"
Well, I would think there would be less homosexual sex outside God's design for marriage, which would be a good thing if one professes Christianity.
But worse, suppose your opinion is wrong and God condemns homosexual acts and does condemn the homosexual (as in 'Depart from me..')
Then those taking your opinion for truth (because of all your knowledge) and continues homosexual acts, then that person is condemned and you have aid and abetted that..in the name of Christianity.
What value homosexual acts to promote such an opinion that could have God very disappointed in you on the last day?
Jesus was celibate...if one cannot fulfill God's design for marriage, then one who loves Jesus, above all else, would be able to walk the same way; celibate.
Feet, I'd love to answer you back bringing something of worth to you...but I just have a hard time following your logic.
Yes, we need a Savior and once we have the Savior we have also the Holy Spirit that brings us understanding to His Word:
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you." John 14:26
And..to continue with making accusations of hate and the sin of pride to his brothers when they don't buy into his opinion?
There is no hate in me to question your opinion, just as there may be no pride in Prophet becoming irritated with your arguments.
It's always someone else's fault? So misunderstood?
I'm sorry, you are irritating.
delight
your understanding is that christ and the cruxifiction.......did not come because man was unable to follow the law.
and if you think he did come for that, now given the right instruction man can. and when he falls having been given that right instruction will immediately realize when he sins or falls and will dutifully repent. and under no circumstances will a true believer commit unrepentent repetitive sin.
Delight - "Suppose your opinion is incorrect and God really does condemn the practise of homosexuality?"
Suppose your opinion is incorrect and God really does NOT condemn the practice of homosexuality? :)
If all that matters is the basic message of salvation through the cross, does it matter what either of us think about this?
"That must be an anathema to you, oh, one of higher education."
Actually, I would applaud your efforts. At least you're passionate about it and not content to be a closet Christian or one who goes to church to keep up appearances.
Brothers who are still on this Thread;
Be very careful of opinions that seem to go against YOUR understanding of what the Holy Spirit says through the inerrant word of God.
There is no 'one accord' here with jh, rather a man educated in the world's wisdom who has no qualms about presenting opinion in violation of God's expressed Word but also is not in one accord with the brothers on this post.
Hold fast.
Over and out.
Delight -
"*Plus the attitude,"
Attitude? In all honesty, I've tried to be honest and upfront about my opinions and have even apologized multiple times for different things. Where is your hatred of me coming from?
"the belaboring of the meaning of Scripture"
If I knew exactly what you knew, and was only speaking to you, then I could skip a lot of explanation and context. I'm sorry, but I don't know you that well, and I'm not tailoring my answers to others specifically to your needs, and I acknowledged up-front that continuing in this forum would only serve to irritate some people.
"and the divisiveness you have created and the lack of love for a brother over the love of intellectual argument."
Like the lack of love you are showing me? I said you were correct and I should have been more long-suffering with Prophet. Debates are divisive by nature. If we all agreed at the start, we wouldn't be here.
"Add to that the disturbingly long time you are taking to answer my questions with simple answers."
I'm not sure if you're talking about actual time between posts or the length of my answers. If you're talking about time - I said earlier that I am in the middle of moving. If you're talking about length, well, there are more readers on this board than just you. If you don't like to read, then there's not much you can do except not read my posts. I find that short answers are vague, and I like to be very clear.
"Your statement above seems as if my questioning you is somewhat offensive to you...and I wonder why you would feel that way."
No, you're just reading into it too much. I'm honestly sorry, because I lack the ability to be clear AND concise. It's usually just one or the other for me, and I prefer to be clear. I'm sorry because it seems like my long answers aren't any good for you. And to be completely honest and blunt, I am a little sorry for you, as well. Impatience is not a virtue, and always going for the simple answer will rob you of the full joys of the Scriptures (even if you don't realize it).
jh Just to disavow you...I don't get my teaching from any Pastor, I read the Word of God with faith and under the knowledge and tutor of the Holy Spirit.
Pretty much; I'm self taught.
That must be an anathema to you, oh, one of higher education.
Don't know nuthin 'bout no Greek Texts and such...just faith in God that He has given me His Word and allows me understanding...since He wills for me to have it.
And just as a pragmatic point here, I look at the design and realize the complexity of it and the plan for it. Homosexual acts are not in God's Plan.
We overlapped due to website refreshing too late...
Let me answer this way to you on your last post.
Your opinion, NO? Homosexuality is not condemned by God.
Hmmmm...and here you are promoting your opinion to sway those who wish to agree with you or to be arguing the devil's advocate to the brothers, here?
Suppose your opinion is incorrect and God really does condemn the practise of homosexuality?
What have you done to the truth of God here on these posts with your opinion? There may be just the slimest (?) of chances you could be teaching falsly?
"who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them."
Are you one of those cheerleaders in Romans 1:32b?
jh-"you're prepared to say that God condemns heterosexual sex acts (or all sex) because they occur in idol worship, too..."
No, jh, that is YOUR argument.
Delight - "Would you go to Homer's Odyssey to interpret Scripture?" Actually, that is precisely what translators do. Your pastor was likely trained by people who probably compared different Hebrew and Greek texts to the Bible in order to fully understand certain words and meanings. The original manuscripts are not dictionaries. They are letters and books written in the same language as many other texts. Let me ask you - do you think that people just guess at what words mean if the Scriptures don't define certain words?
The Bible you have now came to be because centuries of people have put together certain books, used other texts to understand them, and translated them as best possible.
One more question - you quoted 2nd Timothy, so I am assuming you know something of the book. Written probably around 67 AD. I'm curious to know if you trust what is said in Revelations and Hebrews (written after 2nd Timothy). Just for the record, I do. I consider it to be Scripture, even though they hadn't been written at the time of 2nd Timothy when Paul was "declaring" Scripture. So what is Scripture? Who determines what books are Scripture?
"I truly am sorry to hear that you are making judgments about me based on your opinion of my style of writing..."
*Plus the attitude, the belaboring of the meaning of Scripture and the divisiveness you have created and the lack of love for a brother over the love of intellectual argument.
Add to that the disturbingly long time you are taking to answer my questions with simple answers.
Your statement above seems as if my questioning you is somewhat offensive to you...and I wonder why you would feel that way.
Excuse my Berean ways:
"These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so."
Acts 17:11.
Delight -
"Sooo, homosexuality is not Idolatry?"
No more than heterosexuality is or can be. Cybele/Attis just happened to have rituals involving homosexual acts. I could bring up other false gods and goddesses that had heterosexual orgies. It doesn't mean that heterosexuality is idolatry. (Although technically speaking, anything except God can become a false idol.)
"God doesn't condemn homosexual sex acts?"
In my opinion, no.
I think He condemned what the idolaters were doing, which happened to include such acts. But unless you're prepared to say that God condemns heterosexual sex acts (or all sex) because they occur in idol worship, too...
feet - I would contend that holiness is not a prize that you win by not working on the Sabbath or by following certain laws. My own opinion of holiness is that is a state of heart. Are you trying to be Christ-like? If so, the laws can guide your life in ways that will keep you pure and holy. Are the laws substitute for salvation? No. They are not there to save you - Jesus saves, the laws are there to give Christians more fruitful lives.
I believe that is why the laws can and HAVE changed over time. My question to you would be - how important is it to follow all of the rules that are laid out in the Bible today? If it's very important, then the next question is - how many of them do you follow?
Just to anticipate and head off a future question - I don't say this to say the law is useless. The law is useful. I am just asking for the personal opinions of the readers here.
Well, Feet, as you know, there are many who say they have Christ in them but do not live holy lives. Christ in us doesn't necessarily equate to holy living, does it?
So, what's the difference, obedience? Submission to God by incorporating His Word into our heart by an act of faith so that we may walk in holiness; walk in the light?
We are in a RACE and we want to run it well. If I regard 'christ in my heart' but do nothing to gain understanding, then what value is 'christ in me' without understanding?
"Hear, my children, the instruction of a father, And give attention to know understanding;
For I give you good doctrine: Do not forsake my law." Proverbs 4 goes on to say:
Wisdom is the principal thing; Therefore get wisdom. And in all your getting, get understanding.
It would appear, if I'm understanding you at all, Feet is that you can have 'christ-in-you' but seek no understanding and if you posess christ-in-you that He will animate your actions to faithfulness without you seeking understanding through His Word?
jh--Scripture intrprets Scripture not academia interpreting scripture. Would you go to Homer's Odyssey to interpret Scripture? You have to have a legitimate source and it is not found in man's wisdom.
"ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Simple as that.
Without a ton of words, please answer, directly:
Does God condemn homosexuals acts?
And;
How does man reject God to his eternal damnation?
feet - No, I don't think believers are required to assemble new laws. Do I think it happens and we accept it? Yes. There are lots of traditional rules that we simply do not follow because they make us feel uncomfortable, or the church deems them as unnecessary in our day and age. At first, it's uncomfortable, and as generations pass, we feel more at ease because it's "tradition." Do I think it's correct or godly? That's a question I have been unable to fully answer. As a modern day Christian, I know there are things that I do not do that are laid out clearly (e.g. while I am not a HUGE fan of lobster, I will eat it if someone serves it at their house).
You make an excellent point that in a lot of discussions, those on the side of non-condemnation of homosexuality do not bring up life through Christ instead of life through law. (A point I tried to make a while back when talking about how the Pharisees were stuck on law) I think people are simply uncomfortable with the idea - they have been brought up on a translation that condemns homosexuality, and to question the translation and the traditional teachings makes them feel like they are questioning their faith.
Delight - I post far too slowly to answer all your questions before more pop up, so I apologize if you feel like I'm dodging things. To clarify, I know God through Jesus Christ. That is the most important thing. And yes, I know God through at least one book, and so do you. My understanding of God does not come from academia, but academia does give me more insight into Scripture as I read it.
I truly am sorry to hear that you are making judgments about me based on your opinion of my style of writing. I am sort of limited in the forums to writing, and I know I can be long-winded sometimes. I hope you are not suspicious solely based on the number of words I use.
As far as "Certainly, Jesus wouldn't get on this forum and say the things you do. Neither would Paul..." goes, well, I am not them. I don't know what they would say. I would hope they would agree in principle. Or maybe disagree and give me a reason why. I can only guess that they would not say I am wrong because of how I write.
That said, you are correct in saying that I have not been "long-suffering" with Prophet. When he returns, I'll try to answer his questions. If there are any of his questions that you would like me to answer (with my opinion) in the meanwhile, please let me know which ones.
And yes, I do believe that people will go to hell. I believe that people who knowingly reject God will go to hell. There's a sure way to heaven and a sure way to hell. In-between that, God is the judge.
jh
first of all. yes, men did write scripture but it was of the holy spirit's doing. yes they may have written partly according to their own understanding, but it was the holy spirit that was in charge.
my point of discussion is what did the holy spirit want to express. and in the case of scripture it always addresses more than one thing, because it is a message for all time.
it appears to address this temple issue as well as the basis for all sin.
"So that's my opinion of Romans 1 - it's not condemning homosexuality itself. It's condemning idolatry and the worshippers."
Sooo, homosexuality is not Idolatry?
jh, you are very well read but what are you really saying; bottom line:
God doesn't condemn homosexual sex acts?
the only holiness that we have, is christ living in us, and it is living thru that spirit we are holy.
if one receives none of god's righteousness from following the law, why would we contend, we are holy bt following it.
isnt holy being part of what is god.
PART 1:
Forgiven - apologies for the delay in responding. My wife and I are in the middle of moving and I'm writing on my breaks. Regarding Romans - in the past I've read a few different opinions on Romans, both for and against homosexuality. Just for the record, about 10 years ago I was on the other side, writing opinions against homosexuality using Romans. :)
That said, I think the thing that triggered my change of opinion was Paul's use of "them" and I'm not talking about semantics, word origins, or anything in-depth like that.
In his letters to the different churches, Paul addresses the churches directly with instructions to "you" and he separates the audience of his letters from the rest of the unrighteous by referencing the rest as "them." Beginning in Romans 1:18, Paul begins to talk about the unrighteous and godless, and proceeds to spend the next 7 verses talking about idolatry.
Since he spent so much time talking about it, I assumed it must have been a big problem at that time. Paul could have just left it at simple idolatry (there were a lot of gods and goddesses), but he apparently felt the need to spend a verse referencing specific symbols/animals (Romans 1:23): "...images made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."
Doing a little research on Greek gods and goddesses in the area at the same time and we see that several of them are experiencing a surge in popularity (which might be why Paul is so concerned), but the goddess Cybele (including her love interest Attis), matched up perfectly with Paul's description. Attis (according to the story) was a mortal/corruptible man, and his symbol was a rooster (seen on the Attis temples). His priests were called galli. Cybele, who is most often seen with lions (there's even a statue in Spain today of Cybele being carried in a chariot pulled by lions), is also frequently pictured with snakes.
Is it for sure that Paul is talking about Cybele/Attis in his references? Only Paul knew for sure and he didn't name them specifically, so no, it's not for sure - it's just more than likely (not to mention Cybele is even pictured on Roman currency to further note her huge presence in Roman culture). Keep this in mind as it's a potential pitfall for my arguments (I am not out to prove my opinion to be right - just to understand the Scripture clearly).
So what were Cybele and Attis about? Fertility.
I think I've referenced shrine prostitution before, but here's a more detailed explanation: The galli (priests of Attis) were all male. (The next part gets really sick.) The priests' genitals are cut off (because Attis did this before he hung himself) and then they dressed up as women and offered themselves sexually to the male worshippers - essentially an orgy. Cybele priestesses likewise led their worshippers in orgies as well.
Here's where it gets even more interesting (and more importantly, why Paul is so concerned).
PART 2:
In mythology, Attis has a few similarities to Jesus (e.g. hung on a tree and is resurrected after 3 days). He also was, in a way, a descendant of Zeus. My opinion is that Paul is pointing out Cybele and Attis because he does not want any recent convert to have ANY confusion regarding those temples, but does not name those two because he does not want to put limits on who the false gods / goddesses are - that there is only the one true God and Creator. (Notice how many times he says "God" in Romans 1)
Again, is it all for sure? No, but there's a LOT of context here that is hard to ignore, and Paul is REALLY coming down on idolatry and pointing out specific symbols that just happened to coincide with a huge fertility cult that had orgies like Paul makes references to later (another identification of this specific cult).
Now getting to Romans 1:26-27, I mentioned there were several opinions on it. Some debate the meaning of the word unnatural, calling it socially unnatural, which does make some sense, but given how big the cult was, it doesn't make sense to me that it would be socially condemned except within the Christian community. Still, there is some small support for it in terms of what words Paul uses when talking about "natural."
Personally, I think it is what it sounds like. KJV talks about women's "natural use." Given the circumstances of idolatry and how useless it is, I think Paul was pointing out that these people ("them") were worshipping idols of fertility (more like futility) and women were having sex with woman and men were having sex with men - all for the end purpose of furthering fertility and worshipping these false gods... all the while they were ignoring the "natural use" of woman.
Back to "them." When I re-read this chapter in the context of Paul pointing out the idolaters, I don't think he's saying: "Hi everyone, stay righteous. Idolatry is big, and there's only one true God. Look at how unrighteous these idolaters are, how they served creature instead of Creator! By the way, homosexuality is wrong - these idolaters were doing it."
I think in the end, he's condemning the futility of idol worship and he's specifically referencing "them" - the worshippers and the things that they would do for their idols instead of God.
So that's my opinion of Romans 1 - it's not condemning homosexuality itself. It's condemning idolatry and the worshippers.
Step back and think - if Paul WERE condemning homosexuality, why doesn't he have any CLEAR condemnation of it? Homosexuality (including lesbianism) was prevalent at the time. Paul knew what it was, and there were phrases that could describe it quite well without being vulgar. Instead, we see repeated condemnation of theft, greed, adultery (casual sex, prostitution, cheating, etc...), rape, idol worship, etc... A clear condemnation of all homosexual behavior (male and female) could have been easily inserted into any of those lists... if that was his intention.
then as far as romans goes, if homosexuality of itself is a sin as those who stand on lev would contend, why the need for "26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts." why bring in the issue of abandonment? when the sin was"their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also "
is the contention that even between married commited homosexual couples, marriage being about cherishing each other, their relationship is merely about shamebased lust. if one says yes, then he would guilty of false witness. if it is not about shamebased lust then romans 1 is not addressing homosexuality.
is it your intention to ignore one stroke of the law for the sake of your theology
Matthew 5:18
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Luke 16:17
It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.
however if one is able to sift thru icor and 1tim and determine thatt the sin is only the sex act,
how do seperate the act of sex from being heterosexual, the sexual urges and fantasies, all the attractive smells, the innate desire to be attractive to the gender you want to bond with, all the emotional connections.
how the do you seperate it from homosexuality. you cant. the sex act is the expressionof all things homosexual. if the act is a sin, then all manifestations of being homosexual are a sin.
in commited relationships sexual intimacy is considered an important asset in the relationship.
how can it be true homosexuality, that all the ways of being homosexual are not a sin only the sexual act
jh...do you believe anyone will go to hell?
Feet, perhaps you can address your post to the person your response is directed to?
I, for one find you very difficult to understand, maybe if you did just that, you would be better understood here.
jh
i may be preaching to the choir. if so my apologies.
but consider that romans 1 paul is describing the basis for all sin. that god gave them over to essence of spirit of powers and principalities..........those things that we are to" battle"
(1)because they chose not to give thanks and glorify gods in all things, their became futile.................they exchanged the glory of god (their being created in his image) for images of their mortal life on earth......god gave them over to passions and desires that embraced this mortality(eat drink and be merry you have only one life)
(2)they exchanged of truth of their relationship with god, his spirit and his son,and worshipped and served themselves and powers and principalities...............god gave them over shame based lusts, they abandoned what was natural in the spirit thru what they were created, whose fruits were love and peace....etc, for what was not love and peace, but was the essence of the powers and principalities they were serving which engendereed self hatred and self loathing.
having abandoned this, they thought it not worth while to retain the knowledge of what was of god, and their minds became filled with every kind of wickedness.
that is why romans 2:1 says You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.
we at times do not thank god and glorify him in all things, we get caught up in our mortality that leads to undulgences that are not of his spirit, we deny our relationship with god for the sake of own personnal lusts and at those moments we reject the importance of our knowledge of him.
THIS IS WHY WE CANNOT SAVE OURSELVES, BUT NEED A SAVIOR.
the fact that you cant address what i said directly, but only in obtuse accusations means you are incapable of finding any truth to oppose it.
the fact that you cant address what i said directly, but only in obtuse accusations means you are incapable of finding any truth to oppose it.
the fact that you cant address what i said directly, but only in obtuse accusations means you are incapable of finding any truth to oppose it.
the fact that you cant address what i said directly, but only in obtuse accusations means you are incapable of finding any truth to oppose it.
Why bother to lead holy lives? That's not an 'important' part of scripture.
Yippee, God is all inclusive, He accepts my sin and can abide with me while I indulge it.
I can enter into Heaven by uttering the magic words and clicking my heels three times!
Oh, Happy Day!
That's what it sounds like to me that you are saying. God is just to big to understand.
jh you are devisive at best.
You seem to be negating the "enter through the narrow gate".
You seem to be saying that homosexual sex is okay with God, and you are defending homosexuality against the plain teaching of what God has said. If sex outside of marriage is a sin, and God has no where endorsed same-sex unions in His Word; wouldn't the absence of language from God regarding same sex union then a loop hole?
It seems as though you are endorsing sin to people here that are looking for justification for homosexuality on this forum.
You seem to be saying that God is unable to put His Word down to men here on earth without man changing the words and intent of God; "an overzealous editor"?
You seem to make Christianity too complicated.
You seem to be doing with with a lot of words and not really getting to the point.
You seem to not answer Prophet's questions and are not 'longsuffering' on what you deem his 'maliciousness'.
You seem to enjoy foolish argument.
The pursuit of knowing God and His word is not an academic one but it seems you have turned it into one, as my comment of man's wisdom indicates.
I know God through the Person of Jesus Christ and Him crucified, you seem to know God through books and academia. Certainly, Jesus wouldn't get on this forum and say the things you do. Neither would Paul and with so many being decieved through false teachings thse days, I would say just your style of communication makes you suspect to me.
jh
i appreciate the depth of your study, with no intention of dismissing it. and maybe im being to simplistic.
is it your understanding that believers are to assemble a new set of rules.......................laws for the new covenant.................. paul says that we died to the law and are resurrected under grace.
what i find interesting is that those do so always....always refer to these new laws as "god's word" in spite of scripture saying christ was put in authority over all things and was given all judgment
that in order to make these new rules they need to embrace the spirit of deut 28 and infuse it into the new covenant
that in order to feel comfortable with their" homosexuality is a sin" position they to have to AUTOMATICALLYdisconnect themselves from the pain they cause those that are gay, deny their life experiences, and ignore the totality of what is required to be attracted to bond with another human being as with their own orientation. yet these are all, what it means to be in christ.
to do this is the antithesis of fellowship, it comes against loving ones neighbor as oneself, it destroys loving one another as christ loved us. how can we be in christ, by abandoning christ?
should not being in christ be first and foremost in the mind of believers. yet no one is lead by this. everyone appears to be led by an understanding of another rule.
did christ love us thru the law or thru the spirit. romans says we are led by and serve of the spirit.
john 5:39 39You diligently study[c] the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
is christ the life, the truth, the way, and the law?
yet in the discussion about issue of homosexuality i hear none of this from those believers who are not gay.
Good morning!
Delight - I won't talk to Prophet because his pride results in malicious words rather than constructive debate. My own pride has nothing to do with me not talking to him. I'm very familiar with being wrong, and I have no problem admitting it when I am.
I would only hope that if you think I am wrong, then present sound reasons to the contrary. Comparing me to "bible scholars" on PBS doesn't mean a thing, since I don't know who you're specifically referring to. I've heard plenty of "bible scholars" spout nonsense. Similarly, I've seen pastors on TV that are well-grounded. The nonsensical ones are specifically why I said that last statement about introducing doubt. My goal is not just to cast unfounded doubt and leave it at that, which is why I told everyone not just to take my word for it and to ask their pastors or seminary professors.
Do I think God can speak to us on a simple basis? Absolutely - it's how we spread the message of salvation - it's simple. When people on forums like this feel strongly about details and doctrine based on word origins, it is only appropriate to point out issues with translations. I ended my discussion about translation problems by saying that regardless of those problems, we still could read and hear the most important parts.
For the record, I had hoped it went without saying that I do not think God is an imbecile (which is why I say things like, "God doesn't leave loopholes" - I don't think God ever makes mistakes and I believe he can do whatever He chooses to do). I am a Christian and believe in salvation through the cross. As far as what I've said being "the wisdom of men" - I would ask you to think about what you already know. When your pastor comes up with new sermons, is it not the wisdom of men? I don't think it is, because it's learned and taught with the goal of furthering our spiritual knowledge. To me, the "wisdom of men" is the "wisdom" of those who try to do things like disprove God for their own reasons. That is not my goal.
We have all set ourselves up as teachers on this forum (although I don't see you calling on Prophet for teaching his/her view). I agree with you that all we really need to know is Christ and salvation through His sacrifice. This forum debate exists because people feel strongly that homosexuality is just as important of a discussion.
jh,
Does God express His will for sexual itimacy and marriage?
jh, please forgive me, I was referring to Romans.
Mike 22685 wrote: "Forgiven, its a pleasure to talk to you. I appreciate the respect you show for me and our conversation :)"
Likewise Mike.
Prophet, I pray you'll open your eyes and see the fraud that you are. Like JH said, you are too prideful and only attempt to bait fellow Christians, which really drives others away from Christianity. I'm sure you think "well those who can't handle the truth don't have the spirit of God" but you do not have the truth (that's where your pride effects you!)
Delight, it sounds to me like JH has hit the nail on the head, and because you fear what he has to say you're automatically trying to shut it down with no logic present (i.e. "well that goes against my beliefs, so it must be inspired from the devil!")
JH, thank you again for your sharing. I know this board can be exhausting, but my God bless you in your educating of others!
jh, we lived in Holland from 79-82, our son was born in Amersfoort and we visited Utrecht a number of times, we were stationed at Camp New Amsterdam in Soesteberg and we lived in Hooglanderveen, we really enjoyed our time there and the Dutch were super to us. Headed to Louisville see you in a couple of days, believer
On that note I am taking my leave. I've got some major studying to do for an upcoming preaching engagement.
I pray for those ensnared by the spriti of homosexuality and the spirit of deception that work hand in hand. I pray that God will open their eyes before it's too late, that they may turn from their sin, and walk a life of holiness. To attain the image of Christ in their life.
jh, you won't talk to Prophet because HE'S too prideful?
Hmmm.
I think Paul puts it best when he says in 1 Cor 2:1-2;
"And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
"For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified."
jh- I'm just not hearing any evidence from all your words that you know Christ the way Paul does. You sound to me like one of those "bible scholars" used by PBS or Discovery channel.
You call into question too much of the Scripture and make it sound as if you think Scripture is unreliable as it is presented to us here in the 21st century.....do you take God to be an Imbecile? Impotent that He cannot speak to us without a lot of esoteric knowledge on our part?
You say that we "approach salvation with our own set of rules". God IS powerful enough to save those He wants to; but He is not a respecter of persons so He will not violate His Word to save the unrepentant. He is merciful to all but His plan of salvation is quite clear in His Book and the plan is always the same for each person who seeks Him and His salvation. As far as the Aborigine, how are we to wonder how God's mercy includes them but for the our part we just need to concern ourselves with Christ crucified.
"Everyone - I also know the devil can introduce doubt where none existed before"
Look at this statement...isn't that just what you have done in these posts...introduce doubt where none exisited before?
If you are a Christian, jh, you've got a funny way of showing it by casting doubt on God's Word using the wisdom of men.
In view of 1 Cor 2:1-2 What really have you accomplished on this forum? You've set yourself up as teacher when all we really need to know is Christ crucified!
But your opinion on the word effeminate intrigues me. To make oneself lady like would be to have sex with a man. Last I checked that's how God/nature intended it. As per Jesus speaking of marriage between a man and a woman, Paul too, numerous times.
Prophet - I will answer your questions (and do it with Scripture) when you've overcome your pride. Until then, all you're doing is trying to "bait" a fellow Christian and cause dissent for your own prideful purposes.
That said, I would appreciate you not paying any more attention to me. As I said before, if anyone else cares about my answers to your questions, then they are free to ask me.
Adulterer "moichos": male adulterer. I guess females can cheat all they want. And adultery is used in marriage, not fornication.
fornicator: "pornos" whoremonger. to have sex with someone who isn't your spouse (whether you're married or not)
believer - they're currently in Guatemala. Which part of Europe? My wife and I recently visited the Netherlands (she was working with a professor at a university in Utrecht)
PART 1: (again)
Forgiven - I think you're referring to 1 Cor. 6:9, which lists out:
fornicators (pornoi),
idolaters (eidololatrai),
adulterers (moikhoi),
effeminate (malakoi),
and abusers of themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai)
This list is specifically about versions of sexual immorality.
- Pornoi is usually marital in context, and implies cheating on your spouse (usually with a prostitute). (Heterosexual)
- Eidololatrai is Paul's reference to idolatry and how closely prostitution and adultery were interlinked with it. (Non-specific)
- Moikhoi is similar to pornoi, but is more (probably) about frequenting prostitutes. (Heterosexual)
Then the big ones, malakoi and arsenokoitai.
- Malakoi - The malakos word group is used in many different places, especially in other texts written in Greek. It means "soft", which is pretty vague. By far, the most popular meaning of the word implies intellectual softness. That doesn't really make much sense in the context of sexual immorality, so the next most popular reference implies implies a male intentionally being woman-like. Now put that into context of the verse describing different circumstances of prostitution and sexual immorality and we have one plausible option: Male prostitutes that intentionally make themselves effeminate (cross-dress). Maybe...
Now another option: "soft" males would also imply young boys. In Greek culture, after boys reached a certain age of being raised by their mother (an effeminizing influence that the Greek historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus made reference to), they would be separated and be taught by older males. Greek culture also considered pederastry to be normal (yes, I know it's disturbing), and the older men would sleep with the boys.
Keeping in mind that Paul had just mentioned that our bodies were God's temples, and that he was writing to an audience that lived in a culture that thought this practice was normal, this option makes the most sense. Pederastry was not a normal, full and healthy relationship, and God understood this.
What's the LEAST common meaning of the malakos word group? Homosexuality.
PART 2:
- Arsenokoitai - It literally means man-bedder, which is a euphemism for male homosexual activity. What's odd is that even though this word has never been used before, Paul doesn't define it for his audience. What's also strange is that there are several other words that are much clearer to use to indicate simple male homosexual behavior (remember we're talking about ancient Greeks here!). It's used time and time again without definition. So where else is it used?
Aristides uses it when talking about rape.
Eusebius uses it twice, once in clear reference to rape, and the other in warning against adultery.
Hippolytus's "Refutation of All Heresies" uses it when talking about rape (the serpent in Eden raping Adam and Eve)
Porphyry groups it with theft and drunkenness.
Pseudo-Macarius uses it to refer to the attempted rape of the angels in Sodom.
The Sibylline Oracles uses it when talking about stealing and murdering.
Origin uses it to talk about unnatural lusts.
The Acts of John uses it when talking about robbing, defrauding, and thieving.
The KJV is translated into "abusers." To me, all of this indicates anal rape, which would make sense when grouped so many times with "theft" - you're violating their body and taking what you want (often power, but sexual lust included). It's also forced (unnatural).
So what makes more sense?
Don't:
- cheat on your spouse
- prostitute yourself as part of idol worship
- visit prostitutes
- sleep with young boys who have no say in the matter
- rape others
OR:
Don't:
- cheat on your spouse
- prostitute yourself as part of idol worship
- visit prostitutes
- be soft and woman-like
- be a male homosexual (females not included)
To me, the first set is much more inline with sexual immorality.
Mike,
You said in the other thread " A feminine quality is more like gentle, emotional, nurturing, etc."
God tells us to be gentle. So Christians are feminine.
And I did answer the question, apparently you chose not to read it.
Through societal experience and dictionary.com
Mike,
So, since you won't answer the question I posed in the other thread, maybe you can answer it in this one. Where do you get your definition of effeminate?
jhil,
So you're going to conveniently pass on answering whether you believe inceste relationships are ok?
jh, I am so glad you decided not to bail on us and have enjoyed your input to the posts being discussed, what country are your folks serving in. My wife and I lived in Europe for over 7 years and I lived in Taiwan for 2 years prior to meeting my wife, I was in the Air Force during those years. May not get an answer for a couple of days have to go to a meeting in Louisville tomorrow and Tues.
I have not refused to acknowledge them Prophet. Your ability to lie through your teeth and still point out others sins amazes me.
Forgiven, its a pleasure to talk to you. I appreciate the respect you show for me and our conversation :)
jh wrote: "Forgiven - I didn't want to get too far into details with translations (the message was long enough), but I'm assuming you're referring to Majority Text versus Received Text and things like that. (Short primer for other readers: Majority Text is sort of like a combination of different manuscripts, rather than the actual manuscripts themselves. Received Text is what KJV is based off of, but isn't 100% either, since it's been added to and edited by different people over the course of a few centuries, as they saw fit - Google around for greek majority text and you should find a few good articles talking about it)."
Never quite "read" it quite like that before, but yes, I guess I am.
jh,
In Corinthian Paul talks of the male prostitutes and the idol worship, and then continues to talk about men having sex with men and women doing sexual things with other women as well in ordinary life (outside prostituion and idol worshipping). Homosexuality as created in the early 20th century was meant to include the context of orientation therefore, I agree is not the same word used in the Bible, but none-the-less refers to the same act the homosexuals (men and women) participate in.
Mike 22685,
I am hearing what you are saying, but it's not "your" nature or mine, for that matter, but God's that I am concerned with. I am equally conerned with the "born gay" theory only in the sense that it provides a "free pass" that is not extended to anyone else's life experience. Again, just being honest and sincere. It concerns me. And I do not proscribe to the all homosexuals were abused theory. I believe Love and sex are different God created experiences. We are to love everyone even our enemies (go figure ;-)), but only experience sex with our spouse of the opposite gender.
Hey, Mike, thanks for conversing with me without getting upset with me.
Prophet - like I said before, I'm not really going to argue with you any further right now. You're not trying to learn anything - you're trying to twist and cherrypick the Scriptures so as not to be wrong. Pride is in your way.
If someone else wants me to give my opinion / answer to any of Prophet's questions, please ask and I'll be glad to write about it. Otherwise, my opinion does not matter.
No, sex addiction is the same as homosexuality. Both are sins.
And whenever I bring up incest, you always start talking about children. And it's really not a slippery slope argument. It's simple fact that there are men who are in love with their sisters. And you refuse to acknowledge them.
Mike - not entirely true. You can be addicted to substances from birth (usually passed through the mother), but I've never heard of sexual addiction from birth. Sexual addiction is based off of addiction to endorphins, and tends to come from growing up in a culture saturated with sex in nearly every facet of life. Not always, but frequently.
Prophet, you were born with an addictive personality, maybe, but you were not born a sex addict. You cannot be addicted to a substance you've never had.
Prophet, you are obsessed with incest, huh? My mind does not wander to pedophilia, it is a very common argument among your breed when the "slippery slope" argument comes up.
JH, I appreciate the feedback :)
jhig,
But I am under the presumption that you find incest relationships (among adults...I have to make that clear because Mike's mind likes to wander into pedophilia from time to time) are completely acceptable. At least I hope so. Otherwise you're a hypocrite.
Yeah, Romans does talk about sex between same sex genders as sin. I don't white-wash or try to be PC. I just tell the truth.
Well, the reason I'm stuck on the literal meaning is because I choose not to get stuck on someone's created belief on the subject.
PART 1:
Is there any way to privately message someone?
Mike - I'm reading the dialogue between you and Prophet. I think you understand the context of the usage of arsenokoites (pederastry and idol worship), but Prophet seems to be stuck on literal meaning rather than context. If you want to keep debating with him, you might want to try the lesbian argument (e.g. do lesbians inherit the earth?). God is not one to leave "loopholes" in the system. If He is condemning homosexuality, that would include lesbians, although the Greek text is quite specifically targeting males. (Hopefully, Prophet doesn't get hung up on Romans 1:26 and instead recognizes the perverse context of false idol worship). It might prompt him/her to wonder about the circumstances and why lesbianism wasn't included (it's not like it wasn't happening!). Maybe that will be a light turning on. Good luck.
believer - That's good to hear you're a supporter of international missionary work. I'm an MK myself (which is why I'm bilingual), and my parents are still in the field (although they're ready to retire). Missionaries do lead tough lives sometimes, and sometimes people feel their budgets tightening in the U.S. economy, and they withdraw their support, forgetting that missionaries live and depend solely on that financial support.
As far as "how it's done" in regards to salvation in Christian-less areas, I don't know for sure, either, but I think it really comes down to God's mercy and grace. If we approach salvation with our own set of rules, we're limiting God. God can do what he wants - and mercy frequently does not make sense to those who aren't giving it.
Forgiven - I didn't want to get too far into details with translations (the message was long enough), but I'm assuming you're referring to Majority Text versus Received Text and things like that. (Short primer for other readers: Majority Text is sort of like a combination of different manuscripts, rather than the actual manuscripts themselves. Received Text is what KJV is based off of, but isn't 100% either, since it's been added to and edited by different people over the course of a few centuries, as they saw fit - Google around for greek majority text and you should find a few good articles talking about it).
If so, yes, those are troublesome, too.
PART 2:
I know this is a different topic, but I sometimes wonder if an overzealous editor with misguided intentions inserted 1st Corinthians 14:34-35 into the Received Text along the way, since the style of writing is so different than everything else Paul wrote. Reading that chapter in its entirety in Greek feels like reading Genesis 1:1 and seeing, "In the beginning, there was like, a God, and God created the heavens and the earth." The middle portion just doesn't sound right, and it's the same with those two verses. It doesn't sound like anything else Paul writes, and if you remove those verses, 33 and 36 fit together perfectly. And I'm not the person to discover this - I just heard a bit about it and then read up on it. Even some people over at DTS have trouble explaining it, and why the verse references "just as the Law also says" but does not reference what law specifically (something that Paul consistently does). I'm not saying that this is a fact - I don't think anyone could prove it one way or another, but it's just something that I always wonder about when I talk about the different texts.
Everyone - I also know the devil can introduce doubt where none existed before, so never take my word or anyone else's word for things like this, because there are things out there that are blatantly deceiving. Always do your research and ask multiple people who may have different viewpoints (pastors often have similar viewpoints, so if you ask a pastor, be sure to ask someone else, too - a professor at a seminary, or find some more reliable resources online).
It may not be against YOUR nature, but it is against nature itself. I was born a sex addict. That was my nature. It was nothing different than homosexuality. I was able to overcome that sin, or "my nature" (as you put it) because God took "my nature" and gave me His.
I wish more "Christians" would do that.
Forgiven, but if you are born gay, then it is not against your nature. I would not argue that yes, men and woman being together is a natural necessity, but I think there is a large segment of the population (small when you look at the entire population of the world) that is attracted to the same sex, and I believe we are born that way. There is no sense in the argument (not that you are making one) that we chose to be gay (wow, doesn't it look fun!) or that we were all molested or abused and have just repressed it in some way. I am a firm believer in God, but I also have my life experience and mine alone to work off. I know I did not choose my orientation, and I know I am capable of loving someone tremendously (my partner.) Why not use that love to adopt a child in desperate need of a home? I believe that is God's plan for me.
Prophet, check out this website, let me know what you think:
http://www.therubicon.org/?p=1086
Mike,
Look up the greek word "arsenokoites" which comes from the words "sex" and "with men".
Mike 22685,
I realize that you're banking on the passages that speak to men with men and women with women speaking to just those instances void of "love". My concern is that men with men and women with women even those instances that have "love" are still against nature, thereby violating God's own creation and purpose of and for man and woman. I am being very sincere here.
abusers of themselves with mankind means homosexual?!? How do you figure? I certainly am not abusing myself by being in love with my partner, and I'm not sure how you managed to warp my definition of effeminate to mean having sex with a man is effeminate. You're grasping at straws and not doing so well buddy.
The phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind" means to have sex with men.
Homosexuality is an effiminate quality. As per your definition of effeminate.
jh, like you I believe that if a person dies before they can understand their need to be saved and how to be saved that God would not hold them accountable and they will be in heaven, but as for those who understand the need for God and can grasp the concept of sin and its' consequences mainly that of separation from God that is a different issue and God's Word does say that if any person truly seeks after Him, He will reveal Himself to that person, the question that we can't fully answer is how He does it, but Christ's words were clear when He said I am the way, the truth, and the life and no one can come unto the Father but by Me and also the Bible states that there is no other name by which a person can be saved and that name is Jesus. That being true then the question we must ponder is how does God do this in those places where it appears there is no Christian presence and I personally can't answer that, but I believe God can and has and perhaps some day we'll find out how He did and does it while keeping true to the inerrant teachings of His Word, but that is why I am also an ardent supporter of the work international missionaries are doing in a large majority of countries today and most especially those countries that have been without a true Christian presence.
Oh I surely do believe in the Bible, but I also believe you need to think about it, and I don't view interpretation as a bad thing (necessarily.) You prove my point though: The word homosexuality did not come up, anywhere, in the Bible, yet you interpret the word "effeminate" as meaning homosexual, and Sodom and Gomorra as being about homosexuality (rather than blatant rape, hello!) You do, in fact, interpret the Bible.
You either believe the Bible or not. If you say that one scripture COULD be intepreted, you're saying that ALL scriptures could be intepreted. If you take your moral compass from the Bible that puts you in a precarious situation. If you take your moral compass by what man's morals are, then why are you arguing Scriptures for?
Did you really just say whatever to end your argument? I'm not sure what your point about murder and adultery is. If your moral compass doesn't tell you those things are different from two men who love each other, I'm not sure where to go with this conversation. It seems very intrinsic to me.
The fruits of the spirit are merely intepretation. As is murder. Adultery. Fornication. Lying. Since we really don't know what the original meaning was, the entire Bible is simply interpretation.
Actually, I'm glad I don't subscribe to that humanist view of the Bible. If God is big enough to give us the Scriptures, I'm sure it's not beyond Him to keep the translations accurate.
Having sex with a man is effeminate. But if you study the phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind" in that same verse, you will see that it means having sex with men.
So whatever.
Prophet, much like how the word which was literally translated as effeminate has since been INTERPRETED as homosexual. Interpretations leave a lot of room for error and come from one's life experience. You, for instance, assume all gay men are effeminate, and therefore the words must be synonymous in the Bible.
But then, you may be right. The translation may be off. Which would include what Jesus said, did, or implied. So our view of who Jesus was and did, may be incorrect due to improper translating.
"What I -do- know I can rely on is the testimony of the Bible as a whole. I've listened to a non-English speaker trying to give their testimony in English, and they use inappropriate words sometimes."
The difference between the translating of the Bible and the example you gave is this. Those who translated the Bible from one language to another were well versed in both languages. They gave the best intepretation possible. The person you used as an example, was not.
Well, not so arrogant as some on this post.
Study out native Americans. Many of them worshipped The Great Spirit. That could be their interpretation of God, but they did (for the most part) believe in A spirit that controlled all.
The Old Testament Canon was in use, as we have it today, long before Jesus was born.
The New Testament Canon was put together as early as A.D. 115, just a few decades after John passed, as spoken of by Polycarp. The first actual listing of the New Testament was by Athanasius of Alexandria in A.D. 367.
The only differences we have in the books of the Bible are the extraneous apocrypha that the RCC uses. Other than that, every other denomination uses the same Bible.
The different versions merely give a different perspective. Some newer versions take from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other recently discovered extant copies. Other than that, the overall message of the Scriptures hasn't changes one bit.
jh, excellent post! Its clear you've studied the Bible thoroughly. I would be interested in chatting more about your views on translations and interpretations as I find them to be very interesting.
jh, don't be sorry for the long message, it's how we challenge and strengthen our faith. I agree that we have to be very careful in the English transaltions and remember to take all of God's Word in harmony with the whole or as believer clued me in on ;-) that means plenary. The actual concern I have is if a translation has occurred directly from its original greek or something that has already been translated. Thanks for contributing. I hope to read more of your contributions.
LONG MESSAGE PART 2:
(skip down and read the other part first - I forgot that forum posts here are in descending date time)
Now let's say that by chance, we have the canon right. You still have the issue of translations, and I'm only talking about English translations right now.
Try looking up Mark 11:26 in King James Version. Now look it up in NIV. Something missing?
Try the same thing with Matthew 17:21, 18:11, and 23:14. Or John 5:4. Or Acts 24:7. In all, there are about 17 entire verses that are not in the NIV translation. There are almost 200 portions of verses left out, nearly 200 references to God, Jesus, Christ, etc... omitted, and over 200 textual differences between KJV and NIV that make an impact on actual meaning.
Think about how long we've promoted the NIV translation, and God let it happen because we have the free will to make mistakes that may have lasting, far-reaching consequences.
That said, I know the NIV still has the fundamentals of Christian faith in it, but with so many Christians today taking it as though the original authors wrote in NIV English...
And this is just the list of differences between two major English translations. Being bilingual, I know that there are some words that just don't really translate to English very well, and lose much of their context. So I don't know how much of the original Greek is lost in translation, or if someone in the fourth century made a bad decision or a mistake, and people just went with it anyway.
What I -do- know I can rely on is the testimony of the Bible as a whole. I've listened to a non-English speaker trying to give their testimony in English, and they use inappropriate words sometimes, but you listen to the context and to the entire message and you get the meaning.
So instead of believing in the literal translations of the NIV or even the KJV, I look at the context. I look at the life of Jesus, what He said, and when His example and life seems to conflict with a single word in a verse written by a human, I trust in His model.
I know that a lot of you may not be able to get past the idea of a translation not being inerrant. That's fine - I'm just trying to explain why I believe what I believe.
Sorry for the long message.
LONG MESSAGE PART 1:
Prophet - your mocking and arrogant tone only furthers my previous point that you have already made up your mind. I'll continue responding to the rest of you who are at least civil.
believer - I believe that the Bible teaches that volunteers will go to heaven, but I don't believe it teaches that there are others that don't follow X, Y, and Z steps that won't get into heaven. I believe that the people going to hell are those who have had an opportunity to acknowledge and believe in Christ and knowingly reject Him.
So I believe that there are babies in heaven, and I believe there are Native American Indians in heaven who probably saw God in nature and believed in Him (although they probably divided him unto into multiple gods and had their own rituals). I believe God's grace extends to those who know Him, and his mercy extends to those who haven't had the chance to know Him.
I realize that there isn't a lot of literal Scriptural foundation for that belief, but I believe the Bible gives us a glimpse of God's character through his Old Testament self and also through Jesus's example on earth. I believe that verses like Mark 2:27 and Mark 10:5 (both quotes from Jesus) show that biblical laws are there for the sake of giving us more fruitful lives, rather than to allow us to play God. The Bible shows us a sure way to get into heaven, and all we can do is show others that they can get in that way. I don't think the Great Commission gave us the duty of being the ULTIMATE authority on God's law - we only know a fraction of it.
feet - no, I am not 100% convinced of the inerrancy of the English translation of the current canon of the Bible. Do I think that the original Scriptures were God-breathed? Probably.
My main concern (and they've never been fully resolved one way or another) is that I know that God gave humans free will, even when He knew that Adam and Eve would sin and cause irreversible damage to the human race. I think it says something about the frailty of all of us that we didn't even make it through a single generation of perfect people before we sinned. God did not simply step in after a while and say, "Okay, you guys have endured the consequences long enough. Things can go back to the way they were now." No, we're still suffering those consequences.
Now you have the issue of the canon. If Jesus (or for that matter, ANYONE in the Bible) had said that there was to be a single assembly of books A, B, and C and that assembly would be called The Bible, then I would feel comfortable with it. That didn't happen. The list of books that Christians read changed over several years as different people made different decisions on what books should be in the canon. There are still about 20 books that are not in our current Protestant-type canon that are in the Bibles of others.
Who's to say that they weren't divinely inspired, but someone decided that they didn't meet the requirements? (See Geisler and Nix)
jh,
I have to agree with feet (don't fall off yor seat, feet ;-)). This forum is a wonderful way to challenge and strengthen our faith. I hope you continue on these forums.
By the way, God does have rules. I didn't know if you knew that. And God's grace isn't there for those who willingly and unrepentantly continue in sin. You should study the scriptures more.
"I wouldn't doubt that Rahab continued to be a prostitute (if she was one - probably the case)'
That's assuming a lot. But you may be right, since Jesus hadn't been crucified yet. The pharoh could just as well be in heaven too.
believer, after you spend enough time on different forum debates, you learn to recognize early on when you're talking to people that have already made up their minds, and continuing the discussion at this point will only serve to irritate other people.
actually even in this it is useful to find challenges to my understanding, and gives me an oppurtunity to express my own. in a sense when one writes he can look at one's writing to see if it is actually scriptural.
i cannot tell you the number of times i have written something and then had to delete it, when i looked up the supporting scripture.
am i to understand that you dont believe in the inerrancy of scripture and that all scripture is "god breathed?"
jh, please note I'm not saying this about you, but to the issue we're discussing.:)
jh, first off I appreciate your willingness to repond to my last post and please note I don't assume that you are not a Christian and I do agree the worst of sinners can indeed go to heaven and in fact heaven will be filled with nothing but sinners who have been washed in the blood of Christ, but at the same time God's not going to force anyone to go to heaven. I'm a Tennessee Volunteer fan and when I get together with my Kentucky Wildcat friends of which I have many I ask them a simple question, does the Bible not clearly teach that only volunteers will go to heaven to which most go into a stutter step because they know it's true to which I say then why would God be anything but a Volunteer Fan. But the fact is that is a true statement, but at the same time for a person to claim they are a Christian and then to knowingly live in sin or a sinful lifestyle is a blatant fraud and they are no more saved than satan himself. At best they've convinced themselves that they have bought a fire insurance policy that will keep them out of hell when they die, but unfortunately when they appear before the judgement seat and pull it out they'll notice in big bold letters, Null and Void for I knew you not, signed God!
Oh, and just for the record, Prophet, I said nothing to imply that you could be a practicing ______ and go to heaven. I merely suggested that grace is something given by God, so he gets to decide who receives it. If God wants a practicing rapist to go to heaven, then that's His choice to make. I wouldn't doubt that Rahab continued to be a prostitute (if she was one - probably the case), yet I would not be surprised if she were in heaven whenever I get there. Who knows except God?
believer, after you spend enough time on different forum debates, you learn to recognize early on when you're talking to people that have already made up their minds, and continuing the discussion at this point will only serve to irritate other people. I'd rather come off as patronizing and be quickly forgotten than to become a stumbling block for someone.
If you're interested in continuing the debate with me anyway, I'd be glad to exchange e-mails, if there's a way to send my e-mail address in private.
jh, so typical of some, rather than stay and continue the discussion just play the patronizing card and bail out.
I think it's interesting that since you disagree with things I've said, you assume I'm not a believer. I see that the several of you that have responded are not ready to really listen yet, and I'm probably not the person to talk to you. Maybe the Lord will open your hearts and minds in the future and allow you to grow further in your faith. I'll pray for you guys - take care in the meanwhile!
God's will?
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
II Peter 3:9
"No Prophet, what you need to pray for is that God's will be done, not yours. "
Hey, Mike. One of the things I've always wondered about is just how the Jews could walk around the same mountain for 40 years. Then there were the religious leaders of Jesus day who wanted the Messiah to come. The problem was they were not looking for what God wanted. They were looking for what they wanted. Therefore they had Jesus killed because He couldn't be the Messiah. After all, the Messiah wouldn't have any problem with them.
So, how do you know that God's will wasn't already done in Prop 8?
jh, I think Ephesians 2:8-10 will pull those two verses together that show we are saved through faith to join God in doing His will(works)in fulfilling His Great Commission.
and faith is a requirement for salvation.
jhilgeman
consider that james is saying that works are an indication of faith, and not a requirement for salvation.
that if our faith is alive we who "are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus will do good works, which God has prepared in advance for us to do."
however, those good works are defined according to this world but acccording to matters of spirit.
consider also that in the new covenant in christ, in regards to the law, all that is needed are the three commandments of love. that now the law is for making us conscious of loving our neighbor as ourselves. love being the fulfillment of the law. and the all the law that we are concerned about in christ summed up in the 2nd commandment.
and as delight says, perhaps you have not met him , jesus the one who lives in each believer.
and those wanting to be believers, merely having only to ask to him to come in.
jh, I am all for admitting our lack of knowledge in any particular area, but I would caution that God does allow us to know 100% His will for us. We need to continue in His word, and be transformed by the renewing our mind. Rom. 12:2
So I can be a practicing adulterer and go to heaven? A practicing murderer? Rapist? Child molester?
"Honestly, I've heard these responses before, and I'm surprised nobody brought up the verses about faith without works is dead."
That's right. But it has nothing to do with salvation.
"As Christians, we're dealing with a collection of books written in the context of a different culture"
No, rather as a Christian I know the very Alive and Risen Jesus Christ!
That's where you may be going wrong on "heard" it all...
You haven't met the Author. Got it.
Mike,
Amen. Let us pray God's will. That those who's eyes are blinded to that truth of their sin. Pray that God's Holy Spirit will convict them and bring into truth. And that they will turn from their ways, and walk in holiness.
-shrug- I'll be the first to admit that I'm never 100% sure of many of my beliefs. I'm sure that there's a God, there's a need for salvation, and a way to have it through Jesus. Other than that, I'm never 100% sure and neither should you be.
As Christians, we're dealing with a collection of books written in the context of a different culture that has been picked by and translated by mankind (we even have different translations just for English). In those books, God has created rules for mankind, and has even broken his own rules because the rules were made for humans - humans were not made for the rules (to paraphrase Jesus's rebuke to the Pharisees who could not see righteousness for the laws).
Regarding belief as a way to salvation, apparently John 3:16 is a lie because of James 2:19?
Honestly, I've heard these responses before, and I'm surprised nobody brought up the verses about faith without works is dead.
As far as confessions with the mouth - do mute people go to hell? When women do not cover their heads when they pray, are they willfully sinning (and if so, does that indicate unrepented sin, which would lead them to hell according to some of you)?
These are the dangers of literal interpretations of the Bible. Don't fall into the same trap that the Pharisees did and start putting the letter of the law before the grace and will of God (something that we can never fully understand).
Does grace imply the ability to sin without repenting, or is it better to ask if we fully understand sin?
For all that we think we know about the Bible, our faith, and God, we should never let ourselves become arrogant in that knowledge (meaning we think we KNOW 100% about just about any topic).
No Prophet, what you need to pray for is that God's will be done, not yours.
We need to pray for those who's eyes are blinded to that truth of their sin. Pray that God's Holy Spirit will convict them and bring into truth. And that they will turn from their ways, and walk in holiness.
there has been an entire thread about belief as contrasted to faith.
even satan and his demons believe in god and his son
James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that and shudder.
matt8: 28When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes,[a] two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. 29"What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?"
9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[a]
there is a belief that leads to faith, that embraces christ as one's lord and savior. a belief that is tested, that perseveres and runs the race.
and there is another belief
it shuns testing, 1thess 5:20" test everything, keep the good." and denies fellowship"if we walk in the light as he is in the light we have fellowship with one another." subverts witness of the spirit"that which we have looked at and have seen with our eyes, and our hands have touched", and is without support of any objective reason"So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there"
it assigns meaning to verses of scripture, regardless of its words.
the key to staying in the Kingdom is OBEDIENCE to His Word. It doesn't matter if it feels good, sounds good, tastes good. We must obey!! Tell the flesh to hush.
prophet: wouldn't you say the key word in that verse is 'do'?
jh, Christ made it perfectly clear when He said I am the way, the truth, and the life and no one can come unto the Father but by Me. He also said if you love me you'll keep my commands. Plus, John 3:16 was talking about more than a head knowledge of belief in Christ because even satan and his devils have that, but He was speaking to a belief that allows us to put our complete faith and trust in the person and finished work of Christ alone for salvation. And while there are no limits on who can be saved, basically anyone, Christ will save us as we are but He does not want us to stay the way we are and His desire is for us to become the Christ-like person He wants us to be and for a person who claims to be a Christian to choose to willfully live in sin or a sinful lifestyle is a clear indicator they have not had a genuine conversion experience.
"If you're quick to jump to verses that condemn and restrict access to heaven, you might want to ask yourself why."
Yeah, you're right. We need to take those verses out of the Bible. They're outdated. (a bit o' sarcasm).
There's a good, watered-down, conveniently humanistic approach to the Scriptures. "If it offends, take it out."
"you should probably read up on the opposing viewpoints more."
I have read up on opposing viewpoints. They contradict the Word of God.
"More likely than not, both words were used in ways that did not actually imply its literal translation (cross-referenced with other verses and Greek texts where the words are used)."
Sounds to me like you're not too sure. There is no cross-referencing since that is the only place where those words are used. I've heard that argument before, and the same people who use that argument say that in Romans 1, that the word used is "lust", which they profess to be different from the "love" they share with their parnters. Well, that word CAN be cross-referenced with other verses, and it is discovered that it is indeed not the "lust" that people claim it is.
"Last time I checked, the conditions for becoming saved were not specific to baptism, saying a special prayer, or being straight."
So I can be a practicing adulterer and go to heaven? A practicing murderer? Rapist? Child molester?
Not everyone who says unto me "Lord, Lord," will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. But they that do the will of my Father. It is not the will of God for people to be murderers, or adulterers, or even homosexuals.
there has been an entire thread about belief as contrasted to faith.
even satan and his demons believe in god and his son
James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe thatâ€â€and shudder.
matt8: 28When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes,[a] two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. 29"What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?"
Also, for those of who you are quick to condemn people of any faith (Christian or non-believer) to being unable to get into Heaven, just remember that God did not appoint any of us to help him send anyone to hell, only to help people become sure of their salvation.
Last time I checked, the conditions for becoming saved were not specific to baptism, saying a special prayer, or being straight. Those are just symbolic professions of your faith. John 3:16 said whoever believes in Jesus gets eternal life. If you're quick to jump to verses that condemn and restrict access to heaven, you might want to ask yourself why.
Whoever said that arsenokoites meant sex with men needs to be careful about claiming to be an authority on language and/or context of the verse. Same thing with malakoi. Before making a statement like that (especially outside the safer confines of a forum like this), you should probably read up on the opposing viewpoints more. More likely than not, both words were used in ways that did not actually imply its literal translation (cross-referenced with other verses and Greek texts where the words are used). If we take it at its literal translation, then there are also very weak arguments for condemning female homosexuality (outside of a verse or two that specifically references priestesses).
It's like someone who barely knows English hears some slang and interprets it literally, even though the slang actually has an entirely different context or meaning.
If you're truly interested in the truth of the Word of God, rather than just proving your original position, then you should start looking up articles about those two words. There are plenty of Christian sources that have in-depth studies about them.
"i was hoping that someone would come back with something besides mere belief. that has not happened."
Let's see...Paul said "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved". Belief is the foundation of Christianity. You see, God never forces anyone to believe. He gives us enough to take His word for it. After all, how much faith would it take otherwise?
Well, I retract that last statement. There is nothing more than hopeful belief behind the idea that homosexuality is acceptable to God. Even though the Bible says quite clearly that is a sin.
feet,
Then why haven't you come back with something more than belief? Quit hoping and be the one that does. Afterall, I've brought proof. Quit complaining about the fact that all you've brought is your own personal belief, and bring something more.
Homosexuality is a sin, and those who willingly, and unrepentantly, involve themselves in that sin will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
i was hoping that someone would come back with something besides mere belief. that has not happened.
Just to clarify re earlier comments to Smbga,
No, unrepented for sin is NOT GOOD...rather if you have unrenpented for sin but are submitted to God and His righteousness and you get in a car-wreck; you will not lose your salvation. That's what God's grace provides for us finite, fallible children, we are no longer held to the standard of the law keeping.
Could you imagine if this were not so....'well, smbga you were that close to the kingdom of heaven, but ya missed it by a hair, so sad. You should have confessed your sin when you saw that truck cross the line!'
That would be a sadistic God and not a loving Father, who has made a provision for His Children's sin, praise be to Him.
I gotta run, I'll check back later.
Grace isn't a license to sin. It is there for those who are truly repentant, and trying to overcome their sin, in order to live a life of holiness. It's not for the lazy or those who practice sin.
smbga, I've sensed that thing about feet for months and he continues to avoid the issue of violating the Holy Spirit's fruit of self-control and yet he claims it's all about displaying the fruit of the Spirit!
Smbga
Just in response; it is right not to consider ourselves as some kind of Super-Saints...we all sin but we are not condemned for unrepented for sin; that's where the grace of God comes in...once we are submitted to Him and His Word and walk in the light, as He is in the light..
We are not called to perfection, as you may know, we need His Grace every day and be submitted to Him; we sin LESS, we don't become SINLESS.
I see you are all playing the game of split hairs and semantics with our friend feet...I barely glanced at his argument but need to clarify a line of thought I see;
If Homosexuality is a sin under the Law then it is also a Sin under Grace. Same God, same Word.
By the way, both of those are considered sin before God.
"arsenokoites" means to have sex with a man.
The word "malakos" means "effeminate". Having sex with a man is an effeminate quality.
The belief that homosexuality as acceptable to God is a lie from Satan, and there is no witness (other than one's pride) nor any scripture to back their claim of homosexuality as being accepted by God.
I pray for those who are opprssed by both the spirit of homosexuality, and the spirit of deception, that go hand in hand. I pray that their eyes will be open before it's too late.
feet: I am going to be honest with you! You are just trying to yank everyone's chain, or you truly are blinded to the Truth.
Homosexuality is a sin, and those who willingly, and unrepentantly, involve themselves in that sin will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
explain how the greek "malebed", an inanimate object means homosexuality, an animate way of being.
doesn't matter how much they look like the fruits of the Spirit. Those who choose to practice unrighteousness have no part with God. They "deceive themselves". We really must have different Bibles or something.
what you describing is not witness, but merely what your belief allows you to see. that thing that is centered around the concept of "i".
credible witness is not based on belief but is apart from it. apart from the concept of"i". instead it is thru fellowship, thru community, sharing the spirit of christ from the heart thru the holy spirit.
or....thru the eyes of the heart thru the holy spirit thru the one who lives in you.
and credible witness is led by the spirit rather than by belief.
Romans 1
I Corinthians 6
Homosexuality is a sin, and those who willingly, and unrepentantly, involve themselves in that sin will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
The truth is homosexuality is sin under the law. Those who practice the things which are under the law are condemned by the law. Those who practice "righteousness and truth" are free from the law through grace
again according to what scripture doesit say its a sin. you cannot explain how the words say its a sin.
how can one obey a law whose existence they cannot explain or reason.
however additionly, you might consider that belief is centered around the concept of "i" "i believe this" " i dont believe that"
that is why it is thru faith rather than belief, by grace, that we receive salvation.
as scripture says "even satan and his demons believe in christ"
"and that credible witness of the spirit that homosexuals live by compared to heterosexuals proves it. that these people are openly given to their
orientation ,yet their lives and their marriages are full of the fruit of the spirit."
Once again, it's not the fruit of the Spirit. The fruits of the spirit do not abide with sin. You get one or the other. Ephesians 5:9 "For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth." The truth is homosexuality is sin under the law. Those who practice the things which are under the law are condemned by the law. Those who practice "righteousness and truth" are free from the law through grace.
It doesn't matter how much they look like the fruits of the Spirit. Those who choose to practice unrighteousness have no part with God. They "deceive themselves". We really must have different Bibles or something.
as dictated solely by belief ..............."end of discussion"
.Now, I hope Feet doesn't try to reply here with cut and paste scripture to refute me because I will not answer and entertain foolish arguments from one who (I believe) is given over to believe his own lie.
i dont understand. christ and the cruxifiction came because it was determined that man could not keep the law.
romans 8:2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature,[a] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.[b] And so he condemned sin in sinful man,[c] 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.
surely you are aware of ephesians 2:8-9
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith,and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, 9not by works, so that no one can boast.
yet you appear to trump this scripture by a believer's willingness or ability to identify and repent of a particular sin within himself.
however this discussion is not about sin but that scripture never said it was a sin. this can be found thru objective reason of the scriptures.
Acts 17:2
As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
and that credible witness of the spirit that homosexuals live by compared to heterosexuals proves it. that these people are openly given to their
orientation ,yet their lives and their marriages are full of the fruit of the spirit.
could you say the same of those openly given to murder, drunkeness, fits of rage, stealing etc.
Delight: I need to clarify something!! I do not consider myself a super saint. Or someone that is super spiritual.
AND YES PROPHET!!!! I AGREE!! END OF DISCUSSION.
Delight: I have gotten to the place with my walk with The Lord, that I am so cautious where I go, what I say, with whom I associate...... the list goes on. I just do not want to sin against my Heavenly Father. Sin is what separates us from Him. I need Him 24/7. HE is the very breath that I breathe. He is my reason for living. He rescued me yrs.ago from trying suicide.
Homosexuality is a sin, and those who willingly, and unrepentantly, involve themselves in it will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
As feet so eloquently puts it.....END OF DISCUSSION.
feet,
Are you dead?
No, Of course not. Should we sin that grace abounds no?
Is your salvation depended upon repenting over lying or those sins of ommission?
I hope not...that would invalidate the Grace of God.
However, living a life unsubmitted to God that goes against Scripture (such as an obmination) speaks of an unregenerated soul and eternity with God is not in the cards...due to lack of submission to his Word.
I may seem to be a 'fruitcake' to some. But that's ok. I do not have a gospel of my own. Are you aware that there are sins of omission as well as sins of comission? Delight: are you saying that it's ok to tell a lie?
Just a distinction here Smbga, one who PRACTIcES sin doesn't make it to Heaven...not necessarily one who hasn't repented of a particular sin, say lying, if they are submitted under the Lordship of Christ. Our names are written in the Book of Life, God knows from viewing all of Eternity who is in the Book.
If one practices sin as a life-choice then he isn't written in the Book.
A submitted Christian who tells an occasional lie and dies before he repents of it, then he is still written in the Book of Life.
That is God's Grace.
Otherwise,our eternal destiny would be ever changing depending on our ability to repent of our sin. God doesn't earase and re enter our names in the book of Life everyday as we sin or don't sin.
However, in Feet's situation, where there is a desision to practice a particular sin and choose to live in that sin, irregardless of God's warning about that sin, such a one does not love God and will not be written in the Book of Life.
Now, I hope Feet doesn't try to reply here with cut and paste scripture to refute me because I will not answer and entertain foolish arguments from one who (I believe) is given over to believe his own lie.
reedit
my interest is in the teachings of christ.
your response characterizes what i said before..........END OF DISCUSSION
feet: you are free to believe anything you want. but The Truth of all things is in God's Word. There are no loop holes in His Kingdom. Sin is sin. There are many kinds of sins. But if you do no repent, and you die in your sin(s) then you are lost for all eternity. Doesn't matter if it's the sin of gluttony, stealing, murder, etc.....
again without annotation....................your words of belief are according to the gospel of smbga.
my interest in the teachings of christ.
your response characterizes what is said before..........END OF DISCUSSION
9"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. 11I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12MY COMMAND is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.........17This is my command: Love each other.
1JOHN4: 11Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
1JOHN4: 19We love because he first loved us. 20If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. 21And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.
1 John 4:16And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.
there are those who have said to love god means obeying all his laws. the truth is we could obey everyone of the "do not" still not have the love of god in our hearts.
isnt that what pharisees were so meticulous about?
and we know that we receive none of god's righteousness from following the law, but if we live the three commandments of love, we do more the than follow the law .......we fulfill it. because love is the fulfillment of the law.
feet: you are free to believe anything you want. but The Truth of all things is in God's Word. There are no loop holes in His Kingdom. Sin is sin. There are many kinds of sins. But if you do no repent, and you die in your sin(s) then you are lost for all eternity. Doesn't matter if it's the sin of gluttony, stealing, murder, etc.....
feet: Jesus called us friend. not servant. John 15:13
matt25: 8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.[b] 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
one cannot be a homosexual and have the Spirit of God in them. It is impossible. but as I stated earlier, one can be born again (have the Spirit of God in their spirit) and still have demons in their soul. This is where many do not understand the difference between their spirit and their soul. It is not hard to understand, but if one does not allow the Holy Spirit to reveal spiritual things to them, it can seem foolish.
is this the gospel according to smbg? where is your annotation?
one cannot be a homosexual and have the Spirit of God in them. It is impossible. but as I stated earlier, one can be born again (have the Spirit of God in their spirit) and still have demons in their soul. This is where many do not understand the difference between their spirit and their soul. It is not hard to understand, but if one does not allow the Holy Spirit to reveal spiritual things to them, it can seem foolish.
feet: John 15:13-15
feet: Jesus called us friend. not servant. John 15:13
smbga
Thu Dec 04, 2008 6:55 pm :
I know many 'christians' who practice sin. They are very carnal. They won't make it to heaven. The Word is very clear on that also. Gal. 5:19-21
why must it be about somebody else's sin. a them and us mentality, is judgement mentality. the gospel is about loving our neighbor as ourselves and being his servant.
5Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them."[a] 6But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'[b]" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'[c]" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"[d] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
homosexual's believe in their heart that their attraction to the same sex is who they are, the same as with heterosexuals. and they bond in the same spirit out of mutual love , respect, devotion, affection and trust for a shared committed life together.
and those homosexuals that were allowed to marry legally, massachussetts, their marriages aren't trending at all to the divorce levels of heterosexuals.
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED
where in gal 5 do you see homosexuaity in sexual immorality, impurity, and debauchery. these are about shame based lust and self defilement.......1tim,1cor,romans1. where is this in homosexual marriages?
where is there immorality, impurity,debauchery in expressing sexual intimacy with someone a person is bonded with for a shared commited relationship.
is not consistent and satisfying sexual intimacy evidence of a healthy marriage among heterosexuals?. is this not what marriage counselors(secular or clerical) question marital couples about?
why should homosexuals be any different?
and the thing that makes viewing homosexual relationships in this regard, so ridiculous, is that marital relationships regardless of whether homosexual or heterosexua,l overall, have very little with sex, but more about cherishing one another.
and homosexuals have never been found wanting compared to heterosexuals in any sector of society. they aren't less a neighbor, friend, counselor, teacher father, brother, attorney, administrator, doctor. could you say the same of the those given over to the sin nature of verses 20 an 21 compared with those that were not?
the dynamics of seening scripture solely thru belief, is that each scripture is assigned an understanding regardless of its words. .
once assigned, the believer's mental response to any attempt to discuss any of those corresponding verses becomes............ "end of discussion".
how is it that homosexuals as individuals or their marriages embrace or are filled with the fruit of the spirit in the same way as compared to heterosexuals and their marriages? could you say the same of those openingly given to murder, stealing or adultery?
then can this be true of homosexuals.
are the fruit of the spirit of christ, the same as the fruit of the spirit of satan?
i hear it already ..................".END OF DISCUSSION"
It's a very difficult thing to let someone go that way when you try so hard to show them the danger that they get themselves into when they mess with the occult.
You just want to plead and be heard. But when they cannot or will not listen, you place them in God's Hand and pray for His best for them. But even though you may never see them again, it' seems you always remember them and wonder...
I think one day we will be surprised at who's in Heaven....and who is not. Just go to trust prayer and God's mery, grace and longsuffering and His overall plan.
Delight: Speaking of the exorcist, I was the only one in my youth group back in the early 70's who did not go to see it. All 20 something of the youth group went and they all slept in the same bedroom with their parents. I knew it wasn't my kind of movie. I agree that symbols can attract demons. I also believe that certain individuals that we invite into our lives can cause us to come under attack from the enemy. The friend of mine of whom I spoke of earlier, she asked me about the occult just a couple of yrs. ago. I told her that she needed to break the soul tie that she had with her friend in middle school. the one that she did the blood covenant with. She thought I lost my mind. I told her that I have not lost my mind. But she was the one in danger of losing hers. She refused to hear anything I had to say and the Lord let me know that I needed to leave her alone. And I did.
Just my 2 cents worth on this subject.
I think we have all been a little decieved about how demons get in or who opens the door...them or us. The movie The Excorist presented a storyline which indicated the devil indwelled an innocent young child. At the time, I wasn't a Christian but it scared me; for nights I wouldn't turn off the light. O my gosh...satans going around attacking little girls! He is so powerful?
As I've walked with Christ for a joyful 22 years I come to find the devil an impotent foe. Yes, he has the ability to oppress Christians and possess non believers. In both cases there is an invitation of sorts; with the Christian there can be bitterness to open the door or dwelling in anger too long, willful sin. For the unbeliever, it's usually the occult and drugs. But there is a foothold given to satan and evil spirits to influence and even posess the behavior of an non- believer if we give over something in our minds, by short circuiting the function of the conscience mind bycertain types of drugs like LSD et al.
I told my daughter who went through the Gothic fad when in school, "Do not wear pentagrams or any satanic symbols...the evil spirits recognize them and they will oppress you."
Don't know if that's 100% true, but she never did risk it.
believer: these psychics are very limited in their knowledge. Yes, the demons give them just enough info on a person to hook them.
let me clarify myself: the door is open in the spirit world for demons to attack her and attach themselves to her. From what she goes thru and from all the terrible choices she has made as a result of listening to advice from psychics, it's very obvious that she is extremely oppressed.
the enemy (satan and his dark kingdom) are out to get God's children. He already has the majority of the world. Why bother with them? They are already lost. He will entice a person where they are weak. My friend, was always wanting to know the power of God at a young age. Well her parents weren't saved at that time, and the enemy saw an opportunity to get to her. And he did, thru her friend in middle school. The young lady introduced her to tarot cards, and the ouija board. From what she shared with me, it got pretty scary. But when she got saved yrs. later, these very demons were coming and scratching her at nite. She was going out of her mind. It&#